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.