The "Cost" of Forgiveness

[Guest]

Paidion--

i agree that Jesus died to save us "from"our sins. but if you are trying to convince me that I am incorrect in believing that he ALSO died so that our sins can be forgiven, then you have your work cut out for you (not that you are not up to the task). i am rather brainwashed-- my sunday school teachers drilled the idea of forgiveness into me quite regularly. didn't Jesus teach that we need forgiveness? as well as the apostles? wasnt he the perfect lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world?

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7)

what am i missing?

TK

[Guest]

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7)

what am i missing?

I think people have been deceived by the way words have been translated. So without going into a thorough discussion of the matter at this time, let me just say that the word "redemption" has a broader meaning than "buying back". Sometimes it means "fixing up." We use it that way even in English. A shoemaker may tell me that the pair of shoes I brought in are "beyond redemption." In saying that, he means that the shoes are so deteriorated that they are beyond repair. It has nothing to do with "buying back." So, through the blood of Jesus we have redemption, that is "fixing up." Our fallen sinful state is "fixed up."
"Old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new"
2 Corinthians 5:17

Through His blood, we have "the forsaking of sins" not "the forgiveness of sins." His death made it possible for us to overcome through faith.

He endured our sins in His own body on the tree so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. I Peter 2:24

As you quoted:

Through His blood, we have the forsaking of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

Whether you understand grace as "the free gift of God" or whether you understand grace as "the enablement or training into righteousness (See Titus 2), it applies to us being delivered from sin. What a wonderfult gift that Christ should die for our sake so that we can be delivered from sin!

Jesus said, "Whom the Son shall set free, is really free."

[Guest]

Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the alter to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Note: These are the words of The Lord!

This idea of atonement is found again and again: Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35, 5:10, 12:8, 14:20, 16:19, &c. This atoning sacrifice is beyond question shown in the New Testament, particularly in the book of Hebrews, to prefigure the atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word kaphar, Strongs #3722, is the word translated "atonement" in most all the instances it is found in the OT, KJV.
What does this important word mean?

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon: 1. cover over, pacify, propitiate 2. cover over, atone for sin 3. cover over, atone for sins and persons by legal rites.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, Archer, Waltke: kaphar means "to atone by offering a substitute". They comment "Sacrifice of animals in OT theology was not merely an expression of thanks to the deity by a cattleraising people. It was the symbolic expression of innocent life (hint: Jesus) given for guilty life (hint: us).

If you question the meaning of kaphar, consider its use by David in another context, 2 Samuel 21: 1-6. There is a famine in the land because of Saul's bloodthirsty slaughter of the Gibionites. David inquires of the Gibionites "What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" The Gibionites request seven of Saul's descendents to hang and David complies.

Paidion has asserted that the idea of sacrifice to atone for sins was not God's idea at all but merely learned from the heathen and accepted by God as a concession. He has no proof of this whatsoever; it is merely an artiface to support his system. It is easy to believe the opposite: that the heathen learned of, and perverted, the sacrifices of God's true worshipers, even to the extent of sacrificing their children.

When did God ever find the worship practices of the heathen as something He would tolerate? Why would he not accept other heathen practices as a concession?

[Guest]

Paidion, your knowledge of the Greek far surpasses mine so I won't dispute anything you've regarding the root words. However, the concept of blood being shed to atone for sins, as Homer mentioned, is a clear theme of the Old Testament. It would seem that, in God's eyes, innocent blood can indeed be imputed to somehow make the guilty innocent. I don't know how this works but it's hard to deny that the bible teaches it.

I appreciate your non-confomist mentality but it seems a stretch to say that Christ's blood didn't remove our guilt before the Father. I'm not arguing words here, just themes.

[Guest]

I appreciate your non-confomist mentality but it seems a stretch to say that Christ's blood didn't remove our guilt before the Father.

I may have a "non-conformist mentality" as far as Lutheran and Calvinist theology are concerned, but it's an entirely conformist mentality as far as the truth of Christ's magnificant sacrifice is concerned. The source of my beliefs is not my "mentality" but the scriptures and the first and second century "extra-biblical" Christian writings.

It seems that in the days of the OT Israelites, God made a lot of concessions to His people Israel. He allowed them to have a king like other nations, almost lamenting, "You wouldn't have Me to rule over you."
But when they insisted on having a king like the other nations, He not only permitted them to have one, but even told them whom to choose. But He warned therm that their king would bring them trouble.

He allowed them to build Him a temple for their God as other nations did for their gods. Even Solomon acknowledged, "The heavens cannot contain You, how much less this house I have built."

Homer asked:

When did God ever find the worship practices of the heathen as something He would tolerate? Why would he not accept other heathen practices as a concession?

I have just given the example of God permitting worship in temples, although His will was for His people to worship in tabernacles (tents).

The matter of having kings like other nations instead of being ruled by God is certainly a second. It's a shift from submission and obedience to God to submission and obedience to a king.

The Israelites learned from other nations the offering of appeasinig sacrifices to their gods. It was never God's will or desire to have sacrifices offered to Him. As the Psalmist declared:

Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.

God does not desire or require sacrifices and offerings; He requires an open ear that will hear His instructions and carry them out.

The writer to the Hebrews also quoted this passage from Psalms and said the Christ said these words when He came into the Cosmos (when He was begotten at the beginning of time).

Jeremiah made clear that God did not say a word to the Israelites about burnt offerings or sacrifices when He brought them out of Egypt:

Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

The institution of the feast of the Passover was not an appeasing sacrifice, but a remembrance celebration of having been delivered from Egypt.

The Israelites began offering appeasing sacrifices to their God as other nations did to their gods. Some of them even went so far as to sacrifice their children to God. Nevertheless the God of Israel not only allowed them to offer sacrifices, but told them how to offer them. It seems that He even allowed them as a substitute in order to overlook their sin. That's the way the other nations saw their sacrifices.

Here is an example of how the ancient Sumerians, in their liturgy, offered a lamb as their substitute:

"The lamb is the substitute for humanity; he has give up a lamb for his life." From The Sumerians by C.Leonard Woolley p.126

The Sumerians practised human sacrifice, but a person who was designated to be sacrificed could give a lamb in his place, so that he wouldn't have to die.

But Yahew's acceptance of appeasing sacrifices in order to overlook sin, was not continued under the New Covenant. Christ was not an appeasing sacrifice to propitiate, that is to pacify an angry God. In Christ, God restored His basic requirement for repentance and righteousness. He has made the living of a righteous life possible by the sacrifice of His Son on our behalf and for our benefit (not "in our place")

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

[Guest]

Paidion, if your view is correct then wouldn't Ghandi be a Christian? He rejected Jesus as the Messiah but believed in loving his neighbor as himself and even his enemy. I guess I don't see a distinction in your view and those of other religious systems that claim their goal is to "better the person." It makes more sense to me that the world owed God a debt because of all the evil we've stored up and Jesus paid it. In doing so, he appeased a judicious (not angry) God and showed us how to live a life pleasing to God.

[Guest]

Paidion,

To be honest, you haven't really convinced me yet. I have 2 or 3 questions to ask:

1) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 Every version I looked at said either remission or forgiveness. Do you believe that they all have it wrong? If so, why do you disagree with all those translators? Why do you think they chose to translate it that way?

2) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom. 4:3 Why was the crucifixion necessary if faith could be counted for righteousness?

3) You seem upset that people claim forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. You seem to imply that those who hold that belief do not appreciate the price paid there. Does that characterize your thoughts? If so, why do you think it is wrong to believe that way?

[Guest]

Further (not to gang up too much on Paidion)-- Isaiah 53 seems to paint the picture of a messiah who is being sacrificed FOR our sins, not simply so that we can stop sinning.

TK

[Guest]

Thank you for the questions, Michelle. I am always pleased when someone is a genuine seeker after truth and reality, and asks questions to help in this search.

1) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4 Every version I looked at said either remission or forgiveness. Do you believe that they all have it wrong? If so, why do you disagree with all those translators?

Yes, I believe they all have it wrong. The reason I disagree with that translation is that the New Testament record of John the baptizer's message makes no mention of his preaching a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Please consider the following record:

As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

He said therefore to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

And the multitudes asked him, "What then shall we do?" And he answered them, "He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise."

Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Collect no more than is appointed you."

Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." Luke 3:4-14

The verse immediately preceeding this account, according to the Revised Standard Version is the following:

...and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Luke 3:3

But as one can see from the account, John didn't say a word about forgiveness. His whole message was "Repent (Change your mind) and be baptized. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Change your way of living."
As the record shows, he gave practical advice in righteous living to the crowds, and in particular the tax collectors and the soldiers --- advice that fit their occupation, advice to cease their evil practices.

John taught:

Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

That statement is a far cry from teaching, "Get baptized and your sins will be forgiven." There is no evidence that John ever said such a thing. Clearly John did not teach "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Rather he taught "a baptism of repentance for the forsaking of sins, or perhaps "for the release from sins." Although aphesis sometimes means "forgiveness" (a later stage in the development of the meaning of the word), its most frequent earlier meaning was "leaving". The verbal form is so used in the New Testament many times. Here are a few examples:

Matthew 4:11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him.
Matthew 4:20 Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
Matthew 13:36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house...

Consider the following quote of our Lord where the noun "aphesis" is used:

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed..."

Or do you suppose Jesus was sent to proclaim "forgiveness" to the captives and "forgiveness" for those who are oppressed?

If not, then I think it is clear from John the Baptizer's message that he was also proclaiming a baptism of repentance from the release from sins, or the setting at liberty from sins.

Why do you think they chose to translate it that way?

I think generations of Protestants within Christendom from the days of Luther held to the ideas of "substitutionary atonement" and "appeasement of God by Christ's death", and that Christ's death was all about forgiveness rather than about enabling righteousness. Since John proclaimed basically the same message as Jesus proclaimed, the translators chose the word "forgiveness" in order to be able to find their theological views in the bible.

2) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom. 4:3 Why was the crucifixion necessary if faith could be counted for righteousness?

That question could be asked of any of us, not only those who hold my view.

As you know, the Greek preposition used in that passage indicates that faith is counted "toward" righteousness, or "into righteousness", that is, with righteousess as the goal --- an actual righteousness, not merely a positional righteousness. Paul taught that the purpose of Christ's death was "that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." This enabling grace (see Titus ch 2) is what was made available through the death of Christ. We appropriate that enabling grace through faith. The enabling grace is Christ's part in salvation from sin. Faith in Christ is our part in our salvation from sin. Salvation is a process of becoming conformed to the image of Christ, and will culminate in His putting the finishing touches on the process when He comes. We will then be perfect or complete as disciples.

3) You seem upset that people claim forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. You seem to imply that those who hold that belief do not appreciate the price paid there. Does that characterize your thoughts? If so, why do you think it is wrong to believe that way?

My concern is for people who think that they are forgiven though Christ's sacrifice, and that it is unnecessary for them to live righteously (because "it's not of works, you know"). It's not a matter of not appreciating Christ's great sacrifice. It's a matter of not appropriating it, of receiving the benefits of being enabled to live righteously before God.
I think many are deceived into thinking they are true Christians simply because of their belief that they have been forgiven, whereas John the apostle said:

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who practises sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. I John 3:7,8

Paul also had the same message, though He expressed it quite differently.
People want to get to heaven while hanging onto their life styles. Jesus said, "Unless you forsake all and follow me, you cannot be my disciple."

He also said:

Truly, truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it, and he who discounts his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:24,25

[Guest]

Paidion, I think I have a better understanding of your views from that last post. The concern you've raised is what I call the "ticket to Heaven" mentality. You "get saved" and never progress or bear fruit, then die and go to Heaven. I agree with you that this concept is false and dangerous.

In my view, the bible teaches that Christ did pay the debt that humanity owed to God so that we could be set free from sin. My concern with your view is that it seems a bit impractical in the sense that every Christian I know still sins. If Christ came to only set us free from sin, why do we still sin? You can't say that substitutionary atonement arose from the reformation because most of us on the board see it in the scriptures. I didn't grow up in the church and my family is not even remotely Christian so my influence has been my study of the bible. You can convince me otherwise, but it'll take some work.