The "Cost" of Forgiveness

Right & Wrong
User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:57 am

Paidion,

You said:
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.
So you reject positional (imputed) righteousness. I assume you believe yourself to be actually righteous.

And:
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
I do not see John as saying we become righteous by doing good, but that our good works are evidentiary, proof we are in Christ, and have the indwelling Holy Spirit. You should have included v. 6 in your quote: "Whoever abides in him does not sin. Whoever sins (practices sin) has neither seen him or known him." John 15:16: "for without me, you can do nothing". And Acts 5:32: "And we are witnesses of these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given (past) to those who obey (keep on obeying) Him."

Your system is faith + works. In your system it appears the only righteousness you have is based on your works [remember, no righteousness credited (imputed) to your account]. What happens to your righteousness when you sin? "For we all stumble in many ways." When you lay your head on your pillow at night, what if you haven't repented and confessed every sin? Those committed in ignorance. Please don't tell me you never sin without realizing it. Psalm 19:12; "Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from my secret faults."

Your "gospel" doesn't seem to have much "good news" in it.

And you said:
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 seems to me, that in regard to this forum at least, you have raised a strawman here. I can't think of a person posting on this forum currently who advocates this. Even a true Calvinist insist that true Christians will live righteously; its known as perserverance.

If I have misunderstood your position, please explain.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_21centpilgrim
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: portland, OR

Post by _21centpilgrim » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:00 pm

Paidion, TK's question regarding Isa. 53 is a valid one. If after your addressing that could you please explain to us what you believe Paul is talking about in regards of justification.

Perhaps you mix justification and santification together to the extent that we are accepted before God by relying on our redeemed flesh to fullfill the law, this may be reactionary to believers divorcing justification and santification thereby making sanctification optional for the believer.

Would you consider that the gospel is so freeing and liberating and cuts across man's view of earning whatever he gets that the true presention of the gospel would seem to our minds to imply that what we do does not matter, and because the gospel is this free that Paul has to say to his readers, after presenting the gospel, these questions (... is Christ therefore a minister of sin?) Gal.2:17 and (Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?) Rom.6:1
I would dare say that the true gospel message does by no means give us the freedom to sin but it is so liberating that it would lead us to ask these questions in our minds as Paul anticipated his readers doing.

The just for the unjust, while we were yet sinners, He justifies the ungodly. All of this by His might for His glory, that no flesh could boast. I don't know the original biblical languages but I can read, and some things are so straight forward in scripture that you can't greek them out.

I will close with the words of a famous hymn
"Could my tears forever flow'
Could my zeal no languor know,
These for sin could not atone-
Thou must save and Thou alone:
In my hands no price I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"The goal of theology is the worship of God
The posture of theology is on ones knees
The mode of theology is repentance."
Sinclair Ferguson

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:23 pm

Well, it looks as if I have a whole raft of questions to answer. So I'll start with the following one from TK:
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.
It’s interesting, TK, that the official Jewish explanation of Isaiah 53 is that the suffering servant is Israel. However, when, as a young man in bible school, I did Jewish visitation, I showed one Jewish man a pamphlet that contained Isaiah 53 in three languages: Hebrew, Yiddish, and English. I asked him if he had ever read that passage before. He said that he hadn’t. Then I asked him about whom he thought the passage was talking. He replied, “Why the Mashiach, of course!” I was amazed that a Jewish man who had never read the passage could recognize it immediately as speaking of the Messiah.

TK, how do you understand His being sacrificed FOR our sin? Do you think this means He took our place so that we would not have to suffer for our own sin?

What follows is my understanding of the relevant verses from Isaiah 53. I quote from an English translation of the Septuagint Greek. The Septuagint was used by the NT writers, as well as second century writers;

4 He bears (or “endures”) our sins, and is pained concerning us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.

Matthew, who may have written his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, in Mt 8:17 seems to have quoted this verse from the Hebrew as “took [away] our infirmities and carried [off] our diseases.” At least that is the meaning of the Greek gospel. Matthew states that Jesus fulfilled this scripture by casting out demons and healing diseases.

5 But he was wounded because of our lawlessness, and was bruised (or “made sick”) because of our sin: the training of our well-being was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.
6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up to our sins.


Jesus was wounded and put to death because of the lawlessness and sin of His killers. Murder was against God’s laws, and was sinful. It might be true that we are all responsible for His death in the sense that if there were not universal sin in mankind, His death would have been unnecessary. “The Lord gave Him up to our sins.” That is, the Father allowed Him to be killed.
He sacrificed Himself to do away with sin (Heb 9:26), and the process of freeing us from sin constitutes a “training for our well-being.” [Note: if you happen to think this should be “the chastisement of our peace” as in the AV, I would really like to know what that phrase could possibly mean]. His bruises, His death were the means by which were were healed of our sin sickness. Peter makes this clear in I Peter 2:24, 25 where he refers to these verses:

He himself bore (or “endured”) our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his bruises you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

And now back to the passage:

7 And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.

Luke referred to this verse in Acts 8:32, 33.

8. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.

The second century Christian writers understood “Who shall declare his generation?” as indicating that no one really understands His having been generated before all ages. However, I don’t understand why “for his life is taken away from the earth” should follow this.

9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.
10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his plague. If you [plural] can give an offering concerning sin, your soul shall see a long–lived seed:


I need help in understanding verse 10!

11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall endure their sins.
The Father justifies (shows to be righteous) the righteous One (His Son) who serves many well by dying for them, thereby freeing them from sin.

12Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors;

Some Greek manuscripts contain Mark 15:28 in which the last sentence is explained as having been fulfilled when He was put to death between the two thieves.

13 and he endured the sins of many, and was delivered up because of their iniquities. .

Jesus endured the cruelty of His killers, and was delivered up to them because of the wickedness of the Pharisees, and that of Judas, of course
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:19 am

Paidion,

Unless I have misunderstood you, you maintain that the idea of Jesus' death being a substitutionary atonement for our sins began with the reformers.

Consider the following quotes:

From the Letter to Diognetus (c. 125-200), 1.28
"The father placed upon Christ the burden of our iniquities. He gave His own Son as a ransom for us: the Holy One for the transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked... For what other thing has covered our sins than His righteousness?... O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors."

Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.598
[Christ Speaking] "For you I contended with Death, and I paid your death, which you owed for your former sins and your unbelief towards God."

These quotes seem to clearly show the idea of Christ's substitionary atonement is an ancient one. I have more I can quote; these should suffice to make the point.

I realize you are running behind in your replies but wanted to rebut this idea of yours before it slipped my mind.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:48 pm

Thanks for mentioning that, Homer.

I didn't look it up, but I don't think I said that substitutionary atonement had its origin with the reformers. What I think I said is that it became widespread through the reformers, starting with Martin Luther. But I could be mistaken. Let me know if you find exactly what I said.

I was aware of the passage from the letter to Diognetus. Decades ago, when I believed in substitution myself, I had come across this passage. I was highly impressed, because I had previously been unable to find the doctrine in any of the second century writers. I actually read the passage in church, assuring others that the doctrine was there in the early church!

I wasn't aware of the passage from Clement of Alexandria. I am going to look that one up within the next few minutes.

You mention that you have others. I would be very happy if you should share those others with me. I have been looking for this evidence for a long time.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_MoGrace2u
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by _MoGrace2u » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:47 pm

Here's my musings on this:
Sin brings judgment, the penalty of which is death. We cannot pay this penalty and live. Therefore condemnation remains upon us though we have died. All our death accomplishes is that our sin ceases. It can do nothing to reconcile us to God. Jesus, however, who paid the penalty for us and possesses an endless life, has survived the death which we could not. The penalty for sin has been met by His perfect sacrifice and God is just in extending mercy to sinful creatures who by faith in His blood no longer have their sins held against them. The decree of death however remains upon our flesh but Jesus extends His eternal life to us so that we may be raised to new life. Justice and mercy in perfect harmony!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Robin

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:57 am

Paidion--

i guess i dont understand why you feel that Jesus's death was not BOTH a substitutionary atonement AND a means to save us from our sins.

i heard once in a sermon, i think, that if we are Christians, then God views us through the "lens" of his Son. Jesus's death was necessary for a legal transaction to take place, namely our justification. So, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, God does not "see" our sin, per se. He sees His Son, and that we are covered by the blood. I think Luther said that all this was a "forensic"(legal) transaction.

that being said, i certainly agree that we are not to sin. i do not think that we are always able not to sin, but a deepening discipleship to Christ, should, practically and ideally speaking, should be a quest toward sinlessness.

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:04 am

Paidion--

i guess i dont understand why you feel that Jesus's death was not BOTH a substitutionary atonement AND a means to save us from our sins.


I think this view makes sense and Jesus said that after he leaves he would sent the Comforter and He would lead us into all truth. The Holy Spirit gives us the power not to sin when He indwells wth our spirit and we get a recreated human spirit as i understand it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:56 pm

The penalty for sin has been met by His perfect sacrifice and God is just in extending mercy to sinful creatures who by faith in His blood no longer have their sins held against them.
Why is it necessary that "a perfect sacrfice" be offered to God before He can "extend mercy"? Why would He "hold their [past] sins against them" if they have died to their self-life, and are following Christ? Doesn't God simply forgive them outright? I can find no scripture which states that Christ had to die in order for God to forive them their past sins. However, I find plenty of scripture which teaches that Christ died to deliver them from their present live sins!

George MacDonald (C.S. Lewis's mentor) had it right when he said:

"It is the indwelling badness, ready to produce bad actions, that we need to be delivered from... this is what he came to deliver us from; not the things we have done, but the possibility of doing such things any more."

"Our wrong deeds are our dead works: our evil thoughts are our live sins."

"From such [discontent, fear, grudging, bitterness, curling of the lip, etc.], as from all other sins, Jesus was born to deliver us; not primarily, or by itself from the punishment of any of them. When all are gone, the holy punishment wil hae departed also.


--- The Hope of the Gospel Chapter 1 Salvation from Sin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_MoGrace2u
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by _MoGrace2u » Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:42 pm

Paidion wrote:Why is it necessary that "a perfect sacrfice" be offered to God before He can "extend mercy"? Why would He "hold their [past] sins against them" if they have died to their self-life, and are following Christ? Doesn't God simply forgive them outright? I can find no scripture which states that Christ had to die in order for God to forive them their past sins. However, I find plenty of scripture which teaches that Christ died to deliver them from their present live sins!
Here's one:

(Rom 3:25 KJV) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Robin

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”