PSA...Found this on X today

[Paleouss]

No, I am saying the wages OF sin is death (you earn death, recieve death by sinning). It is like poison. If you drink the poison you will die.

JonC, forgive me for butting into a conversation with another.

I would agree that the "wages" of sin is death according to the Bible. Some words that I think can be seen as synonymous are...

(a) wages of sin is death
(b) payment for sin is death
(c) the cost of sin is death
(c) natural consequence of sin is death
(d) the ultimate end of sin is death

For me, however, since I am a 'multiple accomplishments proponent, this phrase is in reference to only one of the accomplishments of the Incarnation, death and resurrection (IDR). That being the conquering of the power of sin and death. So I agree, under this context and distinction that I use that "It is like poison. If you drink the poison you will die" JonC post #29).

But this is only one of the accomplishments, i.e, the conquering of the power of sin and death. Another accomplishment would seem to be something regarding the Law.

The Law:
(Rom 7:6 NKJV) 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

(Col 2:13-14 NKJV) 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

(Eph 2:15 NKJV) 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, [that is], the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man [from] the two, [thus] making peace,

The above verse seem to suggest that the IDR had something to do with the Law as well.


Peace to you brother.

JonC, thank you for your clarifications. They help in my slow process of understanding.

What I mean is Penal Substitution Theory holds that God can allow me to escape punishment but sins themselves have to be punished (either Jesus suffered that punishment or the guilty will suffer that punishment).

That helps. Let me ask this, do you make a distinction between (a) punishment and (b) justice? Now I understand the PST holds that justice is receiving punishment and that punishment must be appeased. In this, I think I understand how you disagree. But regarding my parsing them out. Do you believe that God works through justice toward reconciliation.

Here is a verse to consider:

(Mat 23:23 NKJV) 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier [matters] of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

What I'm trying to point out is that "mercy and faith" is considered as "matters of the law" along with "justice".

Peace to you brother

 

[JonC]

JonC, forgive me for butting into a conversation with another.

I would agree that the "wages" of sin is death according to the Bible. Some words that I think can be seen as synonymous are...

(a) wages of sin is death
(b) payment for sin is death
(c) the cost of sin is death
(c) natural consequence of sin is death
(d) the ultimate end of sin is death

For me, however, since I am a 'multiple accomplishments proponent, this phrase is in reference to only one of the accomplishments of the Incarnation, death and resurrection (IDR). That being the conquering of the power of sin and death. So I agree, under this context and distinction that I use that "It is like poison. If you drink the poison you will die" JonC post #29).

But this is only one of the accomplishments, i.e, the conquering of the power of sin and death. Another accomplishment would seem to be something regarding the Law.



The above verse seem to suggest that the IDR had something to do with the Law as well.


Peace to you brother.

I agree that this is only one aspect of the Atonement. The differences between the "Classic" views is each focuses on a different aspect. I disagree, however, that Penal Substitution Theory can be legitimately considered comparable.

What I mean by excluding the Law is salvation and sin apply to people who were never under the Law. In Romans pay attention to Paul's use of the Law and target.

 

[Ben1445]

Exactly. Sin is not only a being but it is also not a material thing.

Did you mean to say that sin is a being here?
Sin could rightly be explained as crime against God.

Sins we have committed cannot be transferred (not only because we read in Ezekiel that guilt cannot be transferred but also because sins are not things.

Not transferred in the way that man transfers sin. Isaiah 53 says the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. That is the transfer of our sin.
An unjust court could transfer the guilt of one crime to an innocent man. A just court could allow an innocent man to volunteer himself to take on the punishment for another.

Some have the same issue with wrath (if God forgives me of a sin then the wrath has to go somewhere, so God punished Jesus). It is not coherent.

That is a backward way to look at it.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

With salvation we no longer have the wrath of God. It is for our unrighteousness that we are under His wrath. Wrath and judgment are not the same thing. They are related. They both are God’s response to our sin.
As long as we retain our sins, we retain our guilt. When God laid on Jesus Christ, our sins, our sins are covered by His blood. God talks about sins being removed to the sea. Not permanently transferred to Jesus. But Jesus was made an offering for our sin. Jesus answers the wrath of God.

No, I am saying the wages OF sin is death (you earn death, recieve death by sinning). It is like poison. If you drink the poison you will die.

But by sin is death and judgement of sin. If you haven’t sinned you should not expect to be judged. But all are sinners. There are several judgments. I am assuming that we are only talking about the judgment of the unrighteous ( the sinners, the unbelievers; they are all the same, and all at some point, were in that position awaiting judgment)

I think you may want to re-examine Matthew 10. Jesus said that the judgment on those who reject the gospel bring preached by those Disciples would be worse than the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah.

Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Why is that city bring judged? For sins? No. For rejecting the message carried by the Disciples.

There would be no judgment without sin. Yes for their sins. The message carried by the disciples was the message of the kingdom of heaven being at hand. They were not yet preaching Christ crucified. He had not been crucified yet. Any rejection is an indication of the rejection of God. They were already turned away from God and would not seek the kingdom of heaven in spite of the mighty works that were done.
It doesn’t say that their punishment is worse. It says that the others who did not have the same witness of works would have a more tolerable judgment. It would be more endurable. Why do the Jews receive no tolerance? Because they sinned willfully, knowing that God would judge, having the law and the witness of Jesus and the disciples and still remaining in sin.
The judgment is there for sinners, with or without the witness of Jesus and the disciples. All are judged by the law that God has written in their hearts.

Another important point Scripture makes is that we were not under the Law (we would be among those who sinned apart from the Law, death reigning even to those apart from the Law).

But those without the Law still have God’s law written in their hearts, Rom. 2, and are answerable to it. Death reigned because all have a law from God. While sin is not imputed without the law, the gentiles are a law unto themselves. There is no problem with sin imputed before the Law or without the Law because we all have a law from God in our selves.

The Law is important to understanding the Resurrection (it is vital), but sin transcends the Law.

These distinctions are not minor, just to be glossed over. They are important. Scrioture makes these distinctions many times (what I posted, these differences, were passages and not my own words).

I still think that you are breaking apart more than needs to be and consequently, coming up with a teaching I have never heard.
God’s wrath, judgment, sin, substitution, forgiveness, etc., are all real things. When people start talking about wrath or substitution, I right away have read flags. It tells me that someone is over thinking Scripture.
We are sinners. We have committed crimes against God. Sin is why we are removed from the garden.
God is angered by sin. God is not pleased with sin or sinners.
God loves the people He made and sent his son to be the propitiation for them. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
God is able to forgive our sin. The blood of Jesus is able to cover our sin.
With our sins covered, we are not judged for sin and we have no part in the second death.

If there is something that I am missing, it would have to do with not knowing every detail of any particular of the theories in question. While I understand that sometimes people add things into teachings to make them fit in their minds, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. I don’t see a difference between wages and penalties in reference to sin. Both are cause and effect.
If you can show me what is against Scripture, I am interested in knowing what is wrong. But a careful review of Isaiah 53 and the scapegoat in the Law, should leave no doubt in your mind about substituting for sin.

What I mean is Penal Substitution Theory holds that God can allow me to escape punishment but sins themselves have to be punished (either Jesus suffered that punishment or the guilty will suffer that punishment).

Is not that the very picture of an innocent person dying in place of the guilty?
The offering for sins in the OT, were they not an example of penalty?
Jesus was tried in a court and though innocent, our sins were laid to his charge. The penalty he was given was death.
The scapegoat teaching shows that the offering is made for sin and that by that offering the sins are removed from the camp of Israel. It took two goats to do what Jesus did by himself.

 

[JonC]

JonC, thank you for your clarifications. They help in my slow process of understanding.

That helps. Let me ask this, do you make a distinction between (a) punishment and (b) justice? Now I understand the PST holds that justice is receiving punishment and that punishment must be appeased. In this, I think I understand how you disagree. But regarding my parsing them out. Do you believe that God works through justice toward reconciliation.

Here is a verse to consider:

What I'm trying to point out is that "mercy and faith" is considered as "matters of the law" along with "justice".

Peace to you brother

I do make a distinction between justice and punishment. God raising Christ to His right hand was, for example, justice. But justice involves more than a penalty for a crime (which is one issue with the judicial philosophy used by Calvin). There is a reason this philosophy died out in secular use. It is flawed.

Mercy and faith are matters of the Law, but they transcend the Law. The Law was a covenant between a select grouo of Isralites. As such it carried a blessong and a curse. They would inherit the curse if left under the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law. He inherited the blessing.

The Law itself contains no real provision for mercy. Sins were covered, but willful sins (sinning "with a high hand" were not. Forgiveness under the Law was only obtained through faith in God, in the Promise (repentance).

Note, there are no passages that state that God must punish sins to forgive sinners. There are no passages that say that Jesus suffered God's punishment. There are no passages that state that Jesus died instead of us dying. There are no passages that state sins can be transferred from the one who committed those sins (in fact, in Ezekiel we read that dins cannot be transferred from the guilty but that they can be forgiven upon repentance).

 

[JonC]

Did you mean to say that sin is a being here?
Sin could rightly be explained as crime against God.

Not transferred in the way that man transfers sin. Isaiah 53 says the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. That is the transfer of our sin.
An unjust court could transfer the guilt of one crime to an innocent man. A just court could allow an innocent man to volunteer himself to take on the punishment for another.

That is a backward way to look at it.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

With salvation we no longer have the wrath of God. It is for our unrighteousness that we are under His wrath. Wrath and judgment are not the same thing. They are related. They both are God’s response to our sin.
As long as we retain our sins, we retain our guilt. When God laid on Jesus Christ, our sins, our sins are covered by His blood. God talks about sins being removed to the sea. Not permanently transferred to Jesus. But Jesus was made an offering for our sin. Jesus answers the wrath of God.

But by sin is death and judgement of sin. If you haven’t sinned you should not expect to be judged. But all are sinners. There are several judgments. I am assuming that we are only talking about the judgment of the unrighteous ( the sinners, the unbelievers; they are all the same, and all at some point, were in that position awaiting judgment)

Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

There would be no judgment without sin. Yes for their sins. The message carried by the disciples was the message of the kingdom of heaven being at hand. They were not yet preaching Christ crucified. He had not been crucified yet. Any rejection is an indication of the rejection of God. They were already turned away from God and would not seek the kingdom of heaven in spite of the mighty works that were done.
It doesn’t say that their punishment is worse. It says that the others who did not have the same witness of works would have a more tolerable judgment. It would be more endurable. Why do the Jews receive no tolerance? Because they sinned willfully, knowing that God would judge, having the law and the witness of Jesus and the disciples and still remaining in sin.
The judgment is there for sinners, with or without the witness of Jesus and the disciples. All are judged by the law that God has written in their hearts.

But those without the Law still have God’s law written in their hearts, Rom. 2, and are answerable to it. Death reigned because all have a law from God. While sin is not imputed without the law, the gentiles are a law unto themselves. There is no problem with sin imputed before the Law or without the Law because we all have a law from God in our selves.

I still think that you are breaking apart more than needs to be and consequently, coming up with a teaching I have never heard.
God’s wrath, judgment, sin, substitution, forgiveness, etc., are all real things. When people start talking about wrath or substitution, I right away have read flags. It tells me that someone is over thinking Scripture.
We are sinners. We have committed crimes against God. Sin is why we are removed from the garden.
God is angered by sin. God is not pleased with sin or sinners.
God loves the people He made and sent his son to be the propitiation for them. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
God is able to forgive our sin. The blood of Jesus is able to cover our sin.
With our sins covered, we are not judged for sin and we have no part in the second death.

If there is something that I am missing, it would have to do with not knowing every detail of any particular of the theories in question. While I understand that sometimes people add things into teachings to make them fit in their minds, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. I don’t see a difference between wages and penalties in reference to sin. Both are cause and effect.
If you can show me what is against Scripture, I am interested in knowing what is wrong. But a careful review of Isaiah 53 and the scapegoat in the Law, should leave no doubt in your mind about substituting for sin.

N9. I mean to say that Penal Substitution Theory treats sin as a material thing.

I agree. It is a backwards way of looking at it, but it has been a common way some have presented it on thos board.

In Christ there is no condemnation, we escape the wrath to come.that is how it should be viewed.

But I can't tell you how many times somebody replied "but where did the wrath go?". That is a sign not of having Penal Substitution Theory an understanding but of being bogged down by the theory. It foes not make sense.

Yes, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than the city that rejects the message of the Disciples. My argument is that rejecting the message of the disciples is rejecting Christ.



Here is the problem (in your last paragraph). You say that you never heard my view BUT you have. You have read it repeatedly in Scripture, even posted it on this thread in verses. It is what is written in the text of Scripture without additions. The problem is you do not recognize it because of tradition (our culture). I spent most of my Christian life not recognizing it either. It took God's conviction to get me back to reading the Bible without making assumptions.

Test my view against Scripture. You will discover that what I have been posting is quotes from Scripture. It is in the text of Scripture. While I still could make a mistake, it is in "what is written" and it deals with every aspect of Scripture (the necessity of Chriat's death, the necessity of the Cross, the necessity of the Resurrection
..etc.).

Now test Penal Substitution Theory. There are no passages that affirm Penal Substitution Theory. The best you can do is test what you think is being taught by the Bible against what you think the Bible teaches. It fails the biblical standards for doctrine.


Here are a few important questions:

Why do you believe that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance but must punish somebody for those sins in order to remain just?

Why do you believe that sins cannot be transferred from the one who sinned?

Why do you believe that Jesus died instead of us?

Is not that the very picture of an innocent person dying in place of the guilty?
The offering for sins in the OT, were they not an example of penalty?
Jesus was tried in a court and though innocent, our sins were laid to his charge. The penalty he was given was death.
The scapegoat teaching shows that the offering is made for sin and that by that offering the sins are removed from the camp of Israel. It took two goats to do what Jesus did by himself.

It depends on what you mean by "in place of". Adam sinned. Did Adam sin "in place of" us? Yes and no. Depends on what "in place of" means.


Adam did not sin instead of us (we still sin). Jesus did not die for our sins instead of us (we still die as a consequence of our sin).

But both Adam and Jesus were representative substitutes for us, they stood in our place representing a whole.

The scapegoat represented a forgiveness to come and guarding against that sin returning (it was accompanied by another sacrifice and represented true repentance).

Penal Substitution theorists have looked back at the Old Testament and interpreted the sacrificial system according to their theory when they should have derived their understanding from Scripture.

 

[Van]

Once again we have a thread discussion PSA with absolutely nobody changing their view one iota.

Was Jesus made to be sin, or was Jesus treated as sin? Treated as sin. Thus His sacrificial death, the just (sinless) for the unjust (sinful) is validated.

The rub, of course is the PSA claim Jesus died for the specific sins (past present and future) of individuals chosen before creation, which of course is the Calvinist doctrine of "Limited Atonement."

So the correct view is Christ died for the sin of humanity, a ransom for all people, rather than the specific sins of some people.

Next we need to understand John 1:29b, where the Lamb of God takes away the sin (singular) of humanity. He accomplishes this one sinner at a time when they are transferred spiritually into Him and undergo the washing of regeneration.

 

[JonC]

I think the best method to determine the more correct views(s) may simply be to use Scripture instead if trying to determine what might be taught by what is in Scripture. Surely this issue is important enough to be in the Bible (in "what is written").

 

[Ben1445]

N9. I mean to say that Penal Substitution Theory treats sin as a material thing.

I agree. It is a backwards way of looking at it, but it has been a common way some have presented it on thos board.

In Christ there is no condemnation, we escape the wrath to come.that is how it should be viewed.

But I can't tell you how many times somebody replied "but where did the wrath go?". That is a sign not of having Penal Substitution Theory an understanding but of being bogged down by the theory. It foes not make sense.

Agreed. If anyone asks again, the scapegoat is not followed to find out, and the depths of the sea are not sounded to find them again.

Yes, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than the city that rejects the message of the Disciples. My argument is that rejecting the message of the disciples is rejecting Christ.

I understand you there. It is just that the perspective given is a merciful God removing punishment based on a level of culpability that is established by the amount of available knowledge of God. It reads to me as if everyone gets the maximum punishment and tolerance is given rather than the minimum sentence and punishment added.
I recognize that there is just a comparison between the two parties here and that there is a lot of assumption taken from this passage. My point is the emphasis on removing punishment rather than adding.
Why it is relevant is because if all are equally guilty, but some have had more opportunity to be cleared of guilt, these people would bear the greater responsibility of remaining in their sin.
It is also not a simple discussion. There were those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam. If they have not sinned as badly as Adam, their judgment would be less in that respect.
God is the just Judge. There is no need to figure out whether God grades on a curve or chooses a different way to measure. There is just the fact that God will judge each person, according to their own works.

Here is the problem (in your last paragraph). You say that you never heard my view BUT you have. You have read it repeatedly in Scripture, even posted it on this thread in verses. It is what is written in the text of Scripture without additions. The problem is you do not recognize it because of tradition (our culture). I spent most of my Christian life not recognizing it either. It took God's conviction to get me back to reading the Bible without making assumptions.

I don’t see where judgement and death are separated. The fact that they are not the same thing makes no difference. Death is promised because of sin. Sin is judged.
1 Samuel 3:13
For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
Ezekiel 18:30
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

Test my view against Scripture. You will discover that what I have been posting is quotes from Scripture. It is in the text of Scripture. While I still could make a mistake, it is in "what is written" and it deals with every aspect of Scripture (the necessity of Chriat's death, the necessity of the Cross, the necessity of the Resurrection
..etc.).

You have not justified your view to Isaiah 53.

Now test Penal Substitution Theory. There are no passages that affirm Penal Substitution Theory. The best you can do is test what you think is being taught by the Bible against what you think the Bible teaches. It fails the biblical standards for doctrine.

Isaiah 53 does. Not with the word penalty. The word chastisement is close enough in meaning.

Here are a few important questions:

Why do you believe that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance but must punish somebody for those sins in order to remain just?

I didn’t establish that there must be shedding of blood for remission of sin. That is Scripture.
In both examples I have mentioned, scapegoat, and Isaiah 53, there is a substitution. There is an offering for sin. There is a blood sacrifice. The life of the flesh is in the blood and Jesus shed His blood for us.
God requires an offering for sin.

Why do you believe that sins cannot be transferred from the one who sinned?

They are. Isaiah 53.

Why do you believe that Jesus died instead of us?

Isaiah 53.

It depends on what you mean by "in place of". Adam sinned. Did Adam sin "in place of" us? Yes and no. Depends on what "in place of" means.


Adam did not sin instead of us (we still sin). Jesus did not die for our sins instead of us (we still die as a consequence of our sin).

At this point I have dismissed physical death. When we are saved, we don’t keep these mortal bodies. But we are not subject to the second death.

But both Adam and Jesus were representative substitutes for us, they stood in our place representing a whole.

The scapegoat represented a forgiveness to come and guarding against that sin returning (it was accompanied by another sacrifice and represented true repentance).

Penal Substitution theorists have looked back at the Old Testament and interpreted the sacrificial system according to their theory when they should have derived their understanding from Scripture.

I must not be taking it to the extent that you must think of in the theory.
I don’t have a problem with a penalty for sin and recognizing that Jesus paid the penalty.

 

[Van]

I believe there is only one correct view or most correct view, the others are incorrect views.

I do not believe to insist upon one translation choice over another is not as sound as trying to determine what might be taught by the correct understanding of scripture.

Yes, I believe the correct view is important and is taught by scripture.

John 1:29 teaches Jesus was taking away the sin, not sins, of humanity, not of individuals.

Yes, I believe scripture teaches Jesus was treated as sin, because He was a just sacrifice, not an unjust sacrifice. 1 Peter 3:18

Yes, I believe scripture teaches Jesus died as a ransom for all, not just some people. 1 Timothy 2:6

 

[JonC]

I believe there is only one correct view or most correct view, the others are incorrect views.

I do not believe to insist upon one translation choice over another is not as sound as trying to determine what might be taught by the correct understanding of scripture.

Yes, I believe the correct view is important and is taught by scripture.

John 1:29 teaches Jesus was taking away the sin, not sins, of humanity, not of individuals.

Yes, I believe scripture teaches Jesus was treated as sin, because He was a just sacrifice, not an unjust sacrifice. 1 Peter 3:18

Yes, I believe scripture teaches Jesus died as a ransom for all, not just some people. 1 Timothy 2:6

I agree. My point is I believe this has been revealed to us in the text of Scripture.

For example, no passage states that there are people who cannot be saved.
No passage states that Jesus died for our sins instead of us.
No passage states that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

My point is why don't we look at what Scripture does state and just believe that?

 

[Ben1445]

I agree. My point is I believe this has been revealed to us in the text of Scripture.

For example, no passage states that there are people who cannot be saved.
No passage states that Jesus died for our sins instead of us.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Isaiah 53
Who hath believed our report?
and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,
and as a root out of a dry ground:
he hath no form nor comeliness;
and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs,
and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem him stricken,
smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment:
and who shall declare his generation?
for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

No passage states that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

A lot of this teaching is wrapped up in propitiation.

If you’re asking, is God angry with himself?, I think it is an oversimplification of the question.
It is clear that Jesus was forsaken of the Father on the cross.
I am out of time but I will jump back in later.

My point is why don't we look at what Scripture does state and just believe that?

What you are saying is not there, I read in the Bible. Could you please explain to me why these verses don’t mean what I read in them?

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445


First, I apologize. I misstated my question.

Why do you believe that sins can be transferred from one person to another?
Isaiah 53 does not state or imply that they can and Ezekiel states they cannot.


My view is justified to Isaiah 53. If you do not see how then point out the verse and I'll reply (if I have time I will go through the entire chapter, but I don't want to waste time where there is no question).

Where is Judgment and death separated? If you mean the Second Death, this is the judgment on the wicked. I was speaking of the wages of sin (the death "sin begats").

It is separated throughout Scripture.

First, the judgment of the wicked is called "the second death" and is when "Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire". By definition this is separate from the first death.

Second, Jesus tells us that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

Third, in Genesis God refers to death as "returning to dust". This cannot be the second death.

Fourth, death is what "sin begats", "the wages of sin". The second death is God's judgment on the wicked (not something produced by death).



I have tried to answer your questions openly and honestly, and I will continue to do so. But I would appreciate it if you could answer mine as well.

What verse states that Jesus suffered God's wrath?

What verse states that Jesus died instead of us?

What verse states that God must punish sins in order to forgive me of those sins?

What verse states that sins are transferred from the sinner?

 

[JonC]

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Isaiah 53
Who hath believed our report?
and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,
and as a root out of a dry ground:
he hath no form nor comeliness;
and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs,
and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem him stricken,
smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment:
and who shall declare his generation?
for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

A lot of this teaching is wrapped up in propitiation.

If you’re asking, is God angry with himself?, I think it is an oversimplification of the question.
It is clear that Jesus was forsaken of the Father on the cross.
I am out of time but I will jump back in later.

What you are saying is not there, I read in the Bible. Could you please explain to me why these verses don’t mean what I read in them?

No, I am not talking about anger.

You need to kerp in mind that the word translated "propitiation" is arguably "atoning sacrifice" (which includes propitiation). But propitiation does not mean experiencing wrath. It means escaping or turning aside wrath. In Chriat we escape the wrath to come, He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World, He made propitiation. You are reading into the word.


Can I explain those verses do not say what you read in them? Yes, you are reading into them.

Read those passages again.

I am not denying that Christ bore our sins, that He bore the sins of the many, that He was striken for our transgressions, that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all, etc.

I am plainly stating that these passages are exactly correct as written.

My question is why you read in those passages that Jesus suffered instead of us,bore our sins instead of us, that our sins God laid on Him were taken from us, etc.

The issue I have is that you hold a relatively new understanding of the Atonement. The Oenal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a minority view within the Christian fairh that did not become popular until a few centuries ago. So we automatically know that many others (most) read tge same passages without reading what you read.

Your question is spot on. Why do you read what you read in those passages?

What I mean is until you can understand the passages without what you think implied (until the passage makes sense as written) you cannot determine which is biblical.

And I get it. I was there for most of my Chriatian life. It was not until after I realized that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was extra-biblical that I started trying to not infer it into Scripture. And it was difficult. Once you are told the ink blot is a bat you see the bat. It is difficult to deal with it for what it really is.

@Ben1445

Consider - Jesus did not die physically instead of us (obviously). So why was His death necessary?

Jesus did not die thus "second death" (He was not cast into the Lake of Fire). Also, this second death is Christ-centered (not because of sins but because they rejected the Light).

Also, the death "sin begats", the "wages of sin", the death produced by sin is never spoken of as judgment. The judgment comes afterwards.



Let's try this one at a time.

"Christ bore our sins".

Does that say "Christ bore our sins" or "Christ bore our sins instead of us"?

Christ could bear our sins instead of us.
But Christ could also bear our sins (without the "instead of us").

What does the verse actually say?

How would it look if the passage was literally stating that Christ bore our sins?

 

[Paleouss]

I do make a distinction between justice and punishment. God raising Christ to His right hand was, for example, justice. But justice involves more than a penalty for a crime (which is one issue with the judicial philosophy used by Calvin).

Greetings and apologies for my late response.

Ok, you do make a distinction between "justice" and "punishment". You also say that, "justice involves more than a penalty for a crime" (in this, we agree).

Mercy and faith are matters of the Law, but they transcend the Law

Here we might have some disagreement. On the one had you say something I agree with, i.e., that "mercy and faith are matters of the law" (per Matt 23:23). But then you say "but" and go on to put "they transcend the Law". So what does "they transcend the Law" mean? Before I put my frame on the issue, you went on to say...

The Law itself contains no real provision for mercy.

Let me make my case.

1. Jesus explicitly said that "mercy and faith" are "weightier matters of the law" (Matt 23:23).
2. Thus, mercy and faith are provisions of the law.
3. In Matt 23:23, Jesus calls the "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!".

Now, why was He calling them hypocrites? The answer is, because they had "neglected the weightier [matters] of the law" (Matt 23:23). Thus, Jesus is suggesting that not only was there provisions for mercy and faith within the law prior to Jesus' coming, but the scribes and Pharisees should have been teaching it and they are hypocrites for not teaching it prior to His coming.

4. If Jesus Christ was also the plan all along to be the fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17), and the faithful fulfillment of God's promise of faith to Abraham before the law.
5. Then it follows that the Law contains provisions for mercy. For Jesus said that mercy is a matter of the law AND Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of this weighted matter.

Sins were covered, but willful sins (sinning "with a high hand" were not. Forgiveness under the Law was only obtained through faith in God, in the Promise (repentance).

I'm a little confused here. If, as you say, forgiveness under the Law was obtained through "faith" (you say only obtained)...then isn't that admission that faith and mercy were already considered as part of the Law? That is, it was already obtained and given (just the looking forward or looking back is the difference). The only thing one could claim, it would appear, is that Jesus Christ hadn't come to be the fulfillment and completion of that weighted matter of the Law...yet.

Note, there are no passages that state that God must punish sins to forgive sinners.

I'm assuming that you are taking the position that death is not what you are calling punishment. By punishment you mean, wrath. As I have previously provided that the law does bring death.

The Law brings death
(Rom 7:5 NKJV) 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

(Rom 7:9 NKJV) 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which [was] to [bring] life, I found to [bring] death.

So if you do in fact mean 'wrath' when you say 'punishment'. Then the wrath verses would seem to need addressing.

Law Brings Wrath
(Rom 4:15 NKJV) 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law [there is] no transgression.
(John 3:36 NKJV) 36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
(1Th 1:10 NKJV) 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, [even] Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
(Rom 5:9 NKJV) 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

Now your objection is that these verses do no say Jesus has to take on the wrath of God to "deliver us from the wrath to come". But literally says, He delivers us from it.

The verse that muddies the waters, possibly, is Rom 4:15 that says..."the law brings about wrath". So now we have verses that say the law brings death and the law brings wrath. But, I concede that I do not know of any verse that says that Jesus took on wrath.

Peace to you brother

 

[JonC]

Greetings and apologies for my late response.

Ok, you do make a distinction between "justice" and "punishment". You also say that, "justice involves more than a penalty for a crime" (in this, we agree).

Here we might have some disagreement. On the one had you say something I agree with, i.e., that "mercy and faith are matters of the law" (per Matt 23:23). But then you say "but" and go on to put "they transcend the Law". So what does "they transcend the Law" mean? Before I put my frame on the issue, you went on to say...

Let me make my case.

1. Jesus explicitly said that "mercy and faith" are "weightier matters of the law" (Matt 23:23).
2. Thus, mercy and faith are provisions of the law.
3. In Matt 23:23, Jesus calls the "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!".

Now, why was He calling them hypocrites? The answer is, because they had "neglected the weightier [matters] of the law" (Matt 23:23). Thus, Jesus is suggesting that not only was there provisions for mercy and faith within the law prior to Jesus' coming, but the scribes and Pharisees should have been teaching it and they are hypocrites for not teaching it prior to His coming.

4. If Jesus Christ was also the plan all along to be the fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17), and the faithful fulfillment of God's promise of faith to Abraham before the law.
5. Then it follows that the Law contains provisions for mercy. For Jesus said that mercy is a matter of the law AND Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of this weighted matter.

I'm a little confused here. If, as you say, forgiveness under the Law was obtained through "faith" (you say only obtained)...then isn't that admission that faith and mercy were already considered as part of the Law? That is, it was already obtained and given (just the looking forward or looking back is the difference). The only thing one could claim, it would appear, is that Jesus Christ hadn't come to be the fulfillment and completion of that weighted matter of the Law...yet.

I'm assuming that you are taking the position that death is not what you are calling punishment. By punishment you mean, wrath. As I have previously provided that the law does bring death.

So if you do in fact mean 'wrath' when you say 'punishment'. Then the wrath verses would seem to need addressing.

Law Brings Wrath
(Rom 4:15 NKJV) 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law [there is] no transgression.
(John 3:36 NKJV) 36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
(1Th 1:10 NKJV) 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, [even] Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
(Rom 5:9 NKJV) 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

Now your objection is that these verses do no say Jesus has to take on the wrath of God to "deliver us from the wrath to come". But literally says, He delivers us from it.

The verse that muddies the waters, possibly, is Rom 4:15 that says..."the law brings about wrath". So now we have verses that say the law brings death and the law brings wrath. But, I concede that I do not know of any verse that says that Jesus took on wrath.

Peace to you brother

By "no mercy" in the Law I mean a transgression had a penalty. If you accidently killed a man the penalty was death unless you made it to a city of refuge. If you sinned intentionally no sacrifice could be made to cover that sin. That type of thing - associating "mercy" with "forgiveness".

Jesus saying that mercy and faith are weightier than the Law contrasts mercy and faith against the Law. This telks us they are not a oart of the Law. The Law was essentually a contract, a covenant.

When I say "mercy transcends the Law I mean this in a couple of ways. God had mercy on those who were ne er under the Law (Israelites before Moses, Gentiles). But also, our salvation itself is a mercy which "is the righteousness of God apart from the Law."

The Law did bring about wrath. This was different from those who were not under the Law. Why? Because the Law was a covenant between God and Israel which contained a blessing and a curse.

We cannot blend together the consequences of breaking the Law with the "wrath to come" because the "wrath to come" applies to even those who were never under the Law.


So there are two instances where people face "wrath". There is the wratg under the Law (inheriting the curse rather than the blessing) and there is the wrath at Judgment (the "Second Death).


Even if you disagree on there being two different issues here it would not change Jesus never having experienced God's wrath.

Why?

Because Jesus experienced the "first" death (physical death) when He died because of our sins. Sin begats death. But God's judgment was to raise Him to His right hand, to give Him a name above every name.


Penal Substitution Theory begins with the theory and then looks to Scrioture for support and uses the Bible to create a narrative. If you start with a theory you can create a story for the priesthood, the Law, and the sacrifice system that easily "supports" that theory.

If Jesus experienced God's wrath then I am pretty sure that would have been significant enough to be in the Bible. Same with Jesus dying instead of us.

 

[Ben1445]

@Ben1445


First, I apologize. I misstated my question.

Why do you believe that sins can be transferred from one person to another?
Isaiah 53 does not state or imply that they can and Ezekiel states they cannot.

It states clearly that they were. “The Lord hath laid on Him, the iniquity of us all.”
Jer. 29 says that each person is judged by God for his own actions. It means my children don’t answer for what I have done. But I don’t know where in Ezekiel that you mean. If it is in the thread already, I have forgotten it because of the break I took.
It is not the same thing. Again, with the scapegoat, the sins were transferred to the scapegoat.
Leviticus 16:21 KJV
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

My view is justified to Isaiah 53. If you do not see how then point out the verse and I'll reply (if I have time I will go through the entire chapter, but I don't want to waste time where there is no question).

You keep saying our sins were not transferred to Christ. If you would answer what I already emphasized as showing this, that would be great.
I would like the whole chapter where it is clearly applicable. I.e., “who hath believed our report” is not something that is on topic and needs to be addressed here.

Where is Judgment and death separated? If you mean the Second Death, this is the judgment on the wicked. I was speaking of the wages of sin (the death "sin begats").

It is separated throughout Scripture.

First, the judgment of the wicked is called "the second death" and is when "Sheol and death are cast into the Lake of Fire". By definition this is separate from the first death.

Again, we conquer the first death because Jesus has conquered it. But we are buried with him. People still die. As far as I know, only JW’s think that they will live forever in this world. Maybe some people who think that revelation is past might have some kind of similar idea. (I really don’t understand what they think.)

Second, Jesus tells us that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

But yet, we shall not all sleep.
And the second death has no power over some.

Third, in Genesis God refers to death as "returning to dust". This cannot be the second death.

Agreed. But I don’t know anyone who thinks that because Jesus died, they will live forever without dying.

Fourth, death is what "sin begats", "the wages of sin". The second death is God's judgment on the wicked (not something produced by death).

I fail to see why we are talking about physical death.

I have tried to answer your questions openly and honestly, and I will continue to do so. But I would appreciate it if you could answer mine as well.

I hope you don’t think that I am being anything less than honest with you.
Some of your questions don’t belong to me. I have tried to answer in what way they do.

What verse states that Jesus suffered God's wrath?

I don’t think that is something that I have said.
I think I might have thrown out ideas to where the thought comes from.
It is not a hill to die on for me(no pun intended). It makes no difference to me ultimately. I believe that Jesus did what was necessary for salvation. I will know more perfectly in eternity everything that Jesus did for me.
What I do know is that Jesus took on himself, the curse of this world, given to us in the garden, and the death that we deserve as sinners that He does not deserve. The curse on the earth and death can be argued as being in part, the wrath of God.
Those who will not accept Christ will receive the wrath of the Lamb.
Revelation 6:16 KJV
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

There are some things that need to be explained to go deeper. There are people who think that Jesus was suffering in hell for the time he was in the grave. I don’t think that there is Scriptural basis for this. Again, I will discuss it, but what I think won’t change what he did.

What verse states that Jesus died instead of us?

Physically, we are all going to die. Physically it is not a question of instead of.
Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we can also conquer death because Jesus has conquered it.
Because we are redeemed, we will not remain dead, nor take part in the second death.
If you still want an answer for that question, I would ask you to rephrase it. I cannot answer it as asked because I don’t agree with it as stated and don’t know what else you may mean beyond what you asked.

What verse states that God must punish sins in order to forgive me of those sins?

It is part of God’s character. You cannot be just and forgive a debt to one person because you like them and hold someone else accountable because they don’t like you.
I know an example of this sort of actual justice. There was a scout leader who was involved in a traffic accident. According to the law, the scout leader was responsible to pay a fine for his traffic infraction. (At this point I am unsure of the ability to pay the fine. For illustration sake, he was unable.) After pronouncing the judgement, the judge, who had been a scout in this leader’s troop, took off his robe, came down from the bench and paid the fine. (This is a true, local story. The only thing that I am not certain of is that the fine could not be paid by the law breaker. I believe that it was so. That particular detail I don’t remember.)

What verse states that sins are transferred from the sinner?

Isaiah 53:6 especially.
See Isaiah 53 in post 31 bold emphasis.

1 Peter 3:18 KJV
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

[Ben1445]

No, I am not talking about anger.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
ὀργή
STRONG’S NUMBER:g3709
Dictionary Definitiong3709. ὀργή orgē; from 3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment: — anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.
AV (36) - wrath 31, anger 3, vengeance 1, indignation 1;
1. anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
2. movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, but esp. anger
3. anger, wrath, indignation
4. anger exhibited in punishment, hence used for punishment itselfof punishments inflicted by magistrates

I’m not sure you can talk about wrath without discussing and including anger.

You need to kerp in mind that the word translated "propitiation" is arguably "atoning sacrifice" (which includes propitiation). But propitiation does not mean experiencing wrath.

That is not what I meant either.

It means escaping or turning aside wrath. In Chriat we escape the wrath to come, He is the Propitiation for the sins of the World, He made propitiation. You are reading into the word.

You are reading into what I said. All I was trying to say is that understanding propitiation helps with the subject. You are also ascribing to me more than I believe.

Can I explain those verses do not say what you read in them? Yes, you are reading into them.

Okay, explain them.

Read those passages again.

I Did. When it said that the Lord laid on Jesus all OUR iniquities, that is what it means. Why doesn’t it mean that? What do you think is being said? You can’t just say read it again and call that an answer.

I am not denying that Christ bore our sins, that He bore the sins of the many, that He was striken for our transgressions, that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all, etc.

I am plainly stating that these passages are exactly correct as written.

My question is why you read in those passages that Jesus suffered instead of us,bore our sins instead of us, that our sins God laid on Him were taken from us, etc.

I am not guilty anymore. I am not a sinner anymore. I don’t have to spend eternity being judged for my sin. I’m bought with the blood of Jesus. The reason I need to be bought is because of my sin. Jesus bought and paid for me the debt of my sin. The idea of debt comes from parables. It is an example Jesus used.

The issue I have is that you hold a relatively new understanding of the Atonement.

I don’t know if a relatively new name makes it a relatively new understanding.

The Oenal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a minority view within the Christian fairh that did not become popular until a few centuries ago.

Not sure how this can be quantified.

So we automatically know that many others (most) read tge same passages without reading what you read.

Again, where do you get your polling data. You are making up statistics based on what you think people knew or thought, and deciding what to believe based on how old you think it is rather than on the face of it.

Your question is spot on. Why do you read what you read in those passages?

It’s what they say.

What I mean is until you can understand the passages without what you think implied (until the passage makes sense as written) you cannot determine which is biblical.

Stop telling me I am reading into it and tell me what different thing it actually says and why.

And I get it. I was there for most of my Chriatian life. It was not until after I realized that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was extra-biblical that I started trying to not infer it into Scripture. And it was difficult. Once you are told the ink blot is a bat you see the bat. It is difficult to deal with it for what it really is.

Again, I don’t necessarily believe everything that may come along with “the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.” But we sin. The wages of sin is death. Wages are a payment. Penalties are a form of payment. They are synonyms.

@Ben1445

Consider - Jesus did not die physically instead of us (obviously). So why was His death necessary?

Because Jesus gave his life, a ransom for all.
He shed his blood for the remission of sin.
He raised from the dead so you could also.
Instead is the wrong word for the question. I get that that is the point of substituting but the fact that Jesus paid for us with his blood is something that He did for us so that we don’t come under the judgment of God. I have never looked at it like Jesus is spending eternity in hell for me or I will have to die on the cross for my sin. While it sounds like overdoing it, it is something that you appear to be doing. It is not a spot for spot exchange.

Jesus did not die thus "second death" (He was not cast into the Lake of Fire). Also, this second death is Christ-centered (not because of sins but because they rejected the Light).

This is compartmentalizing things that go hand in hand. Ask a sinner in the lake of fire if he is there because of sin or rejecting Christ. He will tell you both.
Were he not a sinner he would not be there. If he had not rejected Christ he would not be there. You cannot separate them in judgement.

Also, the death "sin begats", the "wages of sin", the death produced by sin is never spoken of as judgment. The judgment comes afterwards.

Again, you don’t have one without the other. No one is judged for being a person. They are judged for their works, i.e. bad works, sin. Death and judgment both because of sin.

Let's try this one at a time.

"Christ bore our sins".

Yes.

Does that say "Christ bore our sins" or "Christ bore our sins instead of us"?

Like I said. You’re pushing the substitution mindset too far. You have the fringe teaching in mind that I have never heard before. Whatever you think I mean is probably not what I am saying.

Christ could bear our sins instead of us.
But Christ could also bear our sins (without the "instead of us").

So we both do?

What does the verse actually say?

Jesus took my sins. I don’t have them anymore.
With the scapegoat, they are put on its head and I don’t want to flirt to see where it goes.
What does God do with sin?

Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity,
and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage?
he retaineth not his anger for ever,
because he delighteth in mercy.
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.

He takes care of it INSTEAD of me. (My choice of word, not a quote of Scripture but not inaccurate. It is something that I am unable to do.)

How would it look if the passage was literally stating that Christ bore our sins?

Just like it does.
You don’t think it is figuratively do you?

 

[JonC]

It states clearly that they were. “The Lord hath laid on Him, the iniquity of us all.”
Jer. 29 says that each person is judged by God for his own actions. . . .

Thank you for your detailed response.

Scripture does not say that our sins were transferred to Jesus. A transference would be taking from us and putting on Him. Scripture states that God laid our iniquity on Him, He bore our sins, He shared our infirmity, He was made sin for us, He died for our sins.

Sins were not transferred to a scapegoat. The scapegoat was symbolic, foreshadowing the Lamb that would take away the sins of the world. Penal Substitution theorists read Scripture through the lens of their theory. This is true of any theory.

Yes, I do insist that our sins were not transferred to Christ. Christ bore our sins, they were laid on Him, He shared our iniquity. I once believed the theory correct, so I get that this probably will not make sense to you. It is very difficult once you have been told the ink blot is a bat to accept that it is in reality an ink blot.

The issue with physical death (the first death) is that this is what God told Adam would happen if he ate of the fruit (he would “return to dust”). If Jesus died instead of us then why would we experience this death (obviously Jesus did not experience the “second death”)?

The reason it is important is Penal Substitution theorists blend together the first and second deaths (it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment, not all experience the second death).

Why do you believe that it is a part of God’s character to punish sins? It seems that Scripture indicates otherwise – that justice is a part of God’s character. Punishing the wicked is a part of justice, and God will punish the wicked (the “second death”) but those who have been made new creations are not numbered among the wicked.

I already addressed Isaiah 53:6. The verse itself simply does not teach that God transferred our iniquity from us and laid on Jesus. You are assuming the “transferred from” part.

1 Peter 3:18 – For Christ also has once suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh , but quickened by the Spirit

This also does not support our sins being transferred from us. Jesus suffered for our sins, and this is the just for the unjust.

 

[Paleouss]

JonC. Thank you for your thoughtful reply and patience.

Jesus saying that mercy and faith are weightier than the Law contrasts mercy and faith against the Law. This telks us they are not a oart of the Law. The Law was essentually a contract, a covenant.

I agree that one can find many instances within Scripture that contrast the Law against mercy and faith. However, faith was supposed to be essential for approaching the law. While the law provided rules and regulations, it was meant to be approached out of faith and love for God.

I also agree that the Law in some form was essentially a contract or covenant with Israel. But I think one can also find how the law was for the whole world and also about mercy and faith (hence the Matt 23:23 reference). Romans 3:19 says that "whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." The part I want to drill down on in Romans 3:19 is that the verse says the law was so that "all the world may become guilty before God". Notice here in Romans 3:19 it says "to those under the law" and then qualifies that "under the law" with "all the world". Thus, the law was given so that all the world would be under the law. So that through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); sin is spotlighted, so in the light the “offense might abound”(Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, that is the Son of God. Not just for the Jews, but for "all the world" (Rom 3:19).

I think that although God made a covenant with the Jews, the Jews were also a representation within God's providential history of His divine stratagem of redemption and His desire to show that to future readers. The Jewish people and their history are shadows and insights into God's plan stemming all the way back to Genesis 3:15 and then to the Promise to Abraham. The Law, although given to the Jews to be the stewards of the Law and also a covenant to them, was a Law intended to be given to the whole world. For it literally says, "all the world" became "guilty before God" (Rom 3:19).

Jesus saying that mercy and faith are weightier than the Law contrasts mercy and faith against the Law.

I disagree here. In Matt 23:23, Jesus does not chastises the scribes and Pharisees for teaching the Law. He chastises them for neglecting the most important aspects of the Law (the weightier matters). Those being justice, mercy and faith. Paul particularly chastises the concept of isolating the law from faith which results in a works based justification. The Jewish teachers had all neglected the weightier matters of the Law to the detriment of the true intent of the Law (it seems to me). To the believing, it would be holy and perfect. To the unbelieving it would be death and a curse.

1. Mercy forgives sins
2. Only actions condemned by the law of God are properly called sins.
3. Mercy can only forgive sins that are condemned by the Law.
4. Thus, mercy springs from and is part of the Law.

The Law did bring about wrath. This was different from those who were not under the Law. Why? Because the Law was a covenant between God and Israel which contained a blessing and a curse.

I might point out that within the Old Testament, despite the Jews repeated disobedience and lack of faith...God consistently demonstrated over and over again, mercy. He over and over again, demonstrated He would bless those that had faith. Even after the Jewish people broke the covenant, God's mercy endured. Further, this mercy and His faithfulness will cross every "t" and dot every "i" of His promises to the nation of Israel (despite any unfaithfulness on their part).

Note, there are no passages that state that God must punish sins to forgive sinners.

Since I think I already addressed this in other posts I'll try and get more to the point. So what do you propose Jesus Christ did on the cross regarding the law?

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)

 

[Ben1445]

Jesus took my sins. I don’t have them anymore.
With the scapegoat, they are put on its head and I don’t want to flirt to see where it goes.
What does God do with sin?

I don’t want to follow it. I am happy to have them removed.

I really don’t appreciate the artificiality of AI.