37818
Well-Known Member
How does denial Jesus bears another's sins not allow us to receive Christ's righteousness?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Atonement (Not PSA)
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
That is NOT what I said. I said if I applied your method that would be the logical conclusion.
I DO NOT believe you deny Jesus nore our sins or that we bear His righteousness. I believe we understand "to bear" differently sp we disagree.
I believe it means the same in both instances. We bear His righteousness now (and in a fuller sence in the future) just as He bore our sins.
You believe Christ bore our sins instead of us but we bear His righteousness in solidarity with Him.
Applying your logic that the traditional Christian view that "Jesus bears our sins" is bearing in solidarity equates to a "denial of bearing anothers iniquity" necessitates that conclusion.
IF my belef that Jesus bears our sins (not "instead of us" is a denial that one can bear another's sin THEN my believe that we bear His righteousness (not "instead of") is a denial that one can bear Another's righteousness.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say "to bear" includes "instead of" when it suits your theory but insist otherwise when it does not support your belief.
But where you went wrong (morally) was in your declaration that not to add "instead of" is to deny that one can bear another's sin. That put your integrity at stake.
It would have been better to simply acknowledge that you and I believe Jesus bore our sins differently and then we could have discussed our differences.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
John, I understand what you are saying, but the issue is not whether we “bear” righteousness in the same way Christ bore sin. Scripture never says we bear Christ’s righteousness for Him. It says His righteousness is imputed to us. That is a gift, not a burden. Christ bearing our sins is substitution. We receiving His righteousness is imputation. These are not parallel actions, and Scripture does not treat them as such.
So the question 37818 raised still stands. Denying that Christ bore our sins in the penal sense does not protect imputation. It undermines it. If the debt of sin was not actually paid, then there is no basis for God to credit righteousness to the sinner. The wages of sin is death. A debt was owed, and a debt was paid. That is why the atonement cannot be merely representative.
Tony,
I am not sure that you are aware of the change you made in the post when you equated a wage we earn to a debt we owe.
But that subtle change does speak to a stark difference (a very important difference, although the underlying philosophy is also important) from pre-16th century Christian faith.
It has become almost a given in modern Western Protestant thought (even among atheists looking at our faith due to evangelistic efforts) to think of sin as a debt. The language, I think obviously, comes from the Mosaic Law as being a certificate of debt consisting of decrees against the Jews under the Old Testament. What is ignored is the use of "debt" in reference to transgressing the Mosaic Law, and the fact that our redemption was accomplished - justice demonstrated - apart from the law.
So we have the myth of a "sin debt". This is problematic in several ways, to include the idea of man's influence over God. I do not think Calvin did any better with his revision of Anselm's doctrine than Anselm's focus on honor. Both equally miss the mark.
This is a difference between how you and I understand sin (and between how PSA theorists and pre-16th century Christians understood sin).
I view our sin as less superficial than a debt that can be satisfied.
Brother,
You misunderstood my point.
I was not saying that the post of @37818 denies imputation. I was saying that Christians who view Christ as bearing our sins without adding "instead of us" are not denying Christ bore our sins.
His accusation was that I (and by association millions of Christians throughout history) deny Jesus bore our sins because they reject his understanding of how He bore their sins (they and I view this as solidarity- an exchange via reconciliation).
It is wrong to declare one must hold your understand or deny the passages you are trying to understand.
I probably should not have provided an example of how I could make that same type of false statement against his view as it threatens to hijack the conversation.
To clarify-
I absolutely accept that you and @37818 believe that Jesus bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.
I also believe that Jesus bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.
It would be wrong for either of us to accuse the other of denying that truth
BUT we believe that Jesus bore our righteousness differently. That is worth discussing. Using the discussion as an opportunity to mistepresent the other is not worth the effort. It is wrong and disrespectful.
Anyway - I do believe Jesus bore our sins. God laid our iniquity on Him. We bear His righteousness. God lays Hos righteousness on us.
Our sins were imputed to Him and Hos righteousness is imputed to us.
We disagree in the "how" and the implications.
Luther's "Great Exchange".
PSA theorists often refer to the "Great Exchange" of Luther. Luther did not use those words, but he often spoke of this solidarity (most often as a marriage where all that is the husband's is the wife's and all that is the wife's is the husband's).
But Luther was not a PSA theorist. He has been superficially penned as one (his atonement theory was a non-specific blend of Aquunas and Christis Victor).
Luther viewed this "exchange" as solidarity. Here is his words (perhaps they better explain this better than I):
"Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am thy sin. Thou hast taken upon thyself what is mine and hast given to me what is thine. Thou has taken upon thyself what thou wast not and hast given to me what I was not."
“If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;”
"It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her husband Christ a righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence against all her sins, against death and hell, saying: “If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;” as it is written..."
"Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband’s is also the wife’s."
The first to use a great exchange was Calvin's "Wondrous Exchange". This was PSA.
PSA theorists often refer to the "Great Exchange" of Luther. Luther did not use those words, but he often spoke of this solidarity (most often as a marriage where all that is the husband's is the wife's and all that is the wife's is the husband's).
But Luther was not a PSA theorist. He has been superficially penned as one (his atonement theory was a non-specific blend of Aquunas and Christis Victor).
Luther viewed this "exchange" as solidarity. Here is his words (perhaps they better explain this better than I):
"Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am thy sin. Thou hast taken upon thyself what is mine and hast given to me what is thine. Thou has taken upon thyself what thou wast not and hast given to me what I was not."
“If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;”
"It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her husband Christ a righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence against all her sins, against death and hell, saying: “If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;” as it is written..."
"Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband’s is also the wife’s."
The first to use a great exchange was Calvin's "Wondrous Exchange". This was PSA.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
Brother, I understand what you are saying, but I am not building my view on post‑Reformation categories. I am using the language Scripture itself uses. Scripture speaks of sin as a wage in Romans 6:23. Scripture speaks of sin as a debt in Matthew 6:12. Scripture speaks of ordinances against us being blotted out in Colossians 2:14. These are not later theological inventions. They are the words God chose.
My point is simple. A wage is something earned. A debt is something owed. Scripture uses both ideas to describe sin. If the wages of sin is death, then the wage must be paid. If sin is a debt, then the debt must be removed. That is why Christ bearing our sins cannot be reduced to solidarity. Solidarity does not pay a wage and it does not satisfy a debt.
You say we agree that our sins were imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us. I am glad for that. But the question is what imputation accomplishes. If sin is not a liability with a real consequence, then imputation becomes a figure of speech. Scripture does not treat it that way. It treats sin as something with a wage and a penalty, and it treats Christ as the One who bore that penalty for us.
I am not questioning your sincerity. I am only trying to keep the categories where Scripture puts them. When the Bible speaks of sorrow, it is solidarity. When it speaks of iniquity in the sacrificial system, it is the bearing of guilt with atoning effect. When it speaks of righteousness, it is imputation. My concern is to let the text define the terms.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
Brother, I appreciate the historical notes, but my concern is not to place Luther or Calvin into a system. My concern is to let Scripture define the categories. Scripture says our sins were laid on Christ. Scripture says He bore our iniquities. Scripture says the chastisement of our peace was upon Him. Scripture says the wages of sin is death. Scripture says He was made sin for us. These are not later theological constructions. They are the words God chose.
Luther’s language about our sins being laid on Christ and swallowed up in Him is simply his way of repeating what Isaiah 53 says. Whether we call that substitution or something else, the point is that Christ bore what was ours so that we might receive what is His. That is the exchange Scripture itself describes.
I am not trying to force a system onto the text. I am trying to keep the text in front of us. When the Bible speaks of sorrow, it is solidarity. When it speaks of iniquity in the sacrificial system, it is the bearing of guilt with atoning effect. When it speaks of righteousness, it is imputation. My concern is to let those categories stand where Scripture puts them.
Tony,
Please understand, I am not accusing you of intentionally building your understanding on post-Reformation categories. But that is exactly what you are doing. These categories are engraved in the stone of Western Protestant thought.
I agree you are using words that are found in the Bible but you are using them differently, extracted from the very Scriptures you desire to follow. It is those small changes in Scripture that make a huge difference - even if the changes sound biblical.
Let's look at the examples in your post above.
Does it?
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life i] Christ Jesus our Lord."
No. Death is the wage. James tells us that din itself produces death. We earn death by sinning.
Does it?
"And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
No, not percisisely. If we read in a strict manner what is being called "debts" are two things. The first is transgressions of the Law (the "certificate of debt"). The second is transgressions against one another. Applying this to mean "sins" apart from the law (apart from that "certificate of debt" is too broad. Paul tells us that sins existed apart from this "certificate of debt".
But even transgressions of the law can be forgiven - just not through the law.
What was blotted out? The Old Covenant (the Law consisting of decrees snd ordinances). This "certificate of debt" is a covenant. Steal, eat pork, any violation is a transgression and a moral transgregation for those under the covenant
A wage is received. A debt (we will use your word and expand it to "sin" for to facilitate conversation) is paid.
Here the wage is the sin death produces. It is earned (sin produces death.
But the "debt" is our unrighteousness, how we "miss the mark" of God's righteousness (His justness...same word).
Solidarity absolutely overcomes the wage of sin and satisfies the requirement of righteousness. It just does so in a less superficial way. It goes beyond sins as acts to address actual guilt and wickedness.
I disagree a lot with Luther (we have that in common) BUT on the Atonement being solidarity - he used a marriage as an example - I believe he was correct.
But that is not what you are describing (Luther did not hold PSA).
Luther's language was one of a marriage. What is the husband's is also the wife's. What is the wife's is also the husband's. Jesus bore our sins (our sin is also His) and we bear His righteousness (His righteousness is also ours).
If you doubt this, revisit Luther. The type of exchange you are speaking of originated with Calvin.
I also am not questioning yours. I gave my testimony so it is no secret that I once was a PSA theorist (and for a long time a Calvinist). I held that sincerely as well.
You are missing the definitions that the biblical text gives. Killing the animal (shedding blood) was not defined as transferring sin or guilt. It was defined as obedience. Applying the blood ("making atonement for the sins of thr people") was not defined as "paying a debt" or even a substitution. It was defined as "purifying" and "cleansing".
Let the actual biblical text define these terms. God was very specific in describing the sacrifice system and the cross.
Anthony Pritchard
Member
If you do not mind, I am going to answer you simply, from the text itself, and let the Scripture stand where it stands.
First, on Romans 6:23. You are correct that the verse says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Death is the wage. But that does not remove sin from the wage language. A wage is something earned. Death is not floating in the air. It is “the wages of sin.” Sin is the employer, death is the paycheck. To say “we earn death by sinning” is exactly what I mean when I say Scripture speaks of sin as a wage. I am not inventing a category. I am simply taking the verse at face value. Sin pays out death.
Second, on Matthew 6:12. “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” You are right that the word is debts. You are also right that in the parallel in Luke 11:4 the Lord says, “And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.” Scripture itself equates the two. Matthew says debts. Luke says sins. The Lord Himself uses the language of debt for sin. I am not broadening beyond the text. I am following the way the Gospels interpret each other.
Third, on Colossians 2:14. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” You say this is only the covenant, the law as a set of decrees. I agree that Paul has the law in view. But he does not say the law was neutral. He says it was “against us” and “contrary to us.” It stood as a written record of our failure. That is why he can call it “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us.” The picture is not merely of a covenant document, but of a record of liability. That is why the language of “blotting out” fits both covenant and debt. A bond is cancelled by blotting out the writing. Again, I am not importing a system. I am letting the words do their work.
On solidarity and substitution, I think we are closer than you think, and also farther apart than you want. I gladly affirm that Christ’s union with His people is like a marriage. What is His becomes ours. What is ours becomes His. That is beautiful and true. But that very union is what makes substitution possible. “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Those are not merely statements of sympathy. They are statements of bearing and exchange. He is made to be sin for us. We are made the righteousness of God in Him. You can call that solidarity if you like, but the text itself uses the language of bearing iniquity and being made sin.
You say the sacrifices were defined only as obedience and cleansing, not as transfer or payment. Yet Leviticus repeatedly speaks of the animal “bearing” iniquity and the priest “bearing” the iniquity of the holy things (for example, Leviticus 10:17, “God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord”). The blood is said to “make atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). Atonement is not bare symbolism. It is effectual in the type. The writer of Hebrews then tells us that these things were “patterns of things in the heavens” and that Christ by His own blood has obtained “eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12, 23). The language of bearing, atonement, and redemption is not thin.
On Luther and Calvin, I am not trying to hang anything on either man. You are the one pressing the distinction. My concern is simpler. Isaiah 53 says, “He shall bear their iniquities” (verse 11). Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24). Paul says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). Whether you call that penal substitution, or marital solidarity, or covenantal bearing, the fact remains that Scripture speaks of Christ taking what is ours and giving what is His, in a way that actually removes guilt and satisfies justice. That is all I am trying to preserve.
You say I am missing the definitions the biblical text gives. I would gently say the same back to you. When the Bible uses the language of wage, debt, blotting out, bearing iniquity, curse, redemption, and atonement, I do not feel free to thin those words down to mere cleansing of a space or mere demonstration of love. I agree that the sacrifices purified and cleansed. Hebrews says so. But it also says they pointed to a better sacrifice that actually “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26).
We may well go in circles from here, because at bottom this is about whether the words God chose are allowed to carry the full weight they naturally carry, or whether they must be trimmed to fit a prior model. I am content to let “wage,” “debt,” “blotting out,” “bearing iniquity,” and “made a curse for us” stand as they are written.
If we part, I would rather part at the text than at the systems.
That is all I have to say on this point my brother. I will leave the Scripture to speak for itself.
@Anthony Pritchard
Maybe the ultimate question to answer is whether the New Covenant in Christ's blood is God's righteousness made manifest through the law or apart from the law.
I believe the Atonement fulfills the law but does so apart from the law. You believe it fulfills the law through the law.
Both of us view justice (righteousness) as being accomplished - you by God punishing sins and me by God recreating man.
Part of our difference is the judicial philosophy we believe to be correct. Part is in the depth of depravity which is sin (I do not believe, if we view sin as a "debt", that it is a debt that can be paid).
I am sure there are other differences to explore as well.
I do understand your view. I gave my testimony several times. I also desire to be faithful to Scripture. I hope you will come to understand my position even if you never hold it.
Maybe the ultimate question to answer is whether the New Covenant in Christ's blood is God's righteousness made manifest through the law or apart from the law.
I believe the Atonement fulfills the law but does so apart from the law. You believe it fulfills the law through the law.
Both of us view justice (righteousness) as being accomplished - you by God punishing sins and me by God recreating man.
Part of our difference is the judicial philosophy we believe to be correct. Part is in the depth of depravity which is sin (I do not believe, if we view sin as a "debt", that it is a debt that can be paid).
I am sure there are other differences to explore as well.
I do understand your view. I gave my testimony several times. I also desire to be faithful to Scripture. I hope you will come to understand my position even if you never hold it.