We are saved from WHAT?

[jriccitelli]

Secondly;
Dseusy quoted from John the Baptist, John has twice said; “Behold the lamb of God” (who takes away the sins of the world) this would be the context to what John is teaching; “he who believes in the Son of God …”
Paidion I do not know how ‘you’ are proposing to ‘appease the wrath of an angry God’ or pay for your sins, but it seems clear it must be done. I don’t know how clear scripture has to be, but we also have;
'But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)
‘For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest [as an offering] for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. (Heb 13:11-12)
For Christ also died for sins once for all, [the] just for [the] unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Pet.3:9)
It is no coincidence that Our Savior is also the Lamb of God, sitting on the throne being worshipped...

[Paidion]

You can’t find a verse that says we’ve been healed of sin sickness either.

Ahhh, but I can!

He himself bore [endured] our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

I know that some think this refers to physical healing, but obviousl Peter didn't think so. He states here that Christ endured people putting his to death so that we might be deliverd from sin (die to sin and live to righteousness). Then he quotes "By his wounds you have been healed." In this context, is it not rather obvious that Peter understood Christ's death as a healing of sin sickness?

[Paidion]

Paidion I do not know how ‘you’ are proposing to ‘appease the wrath of an angry God’ or pay for your sins, but it seems clear it must be done.

It can't be done. Past wrongdoing cannot be "paid for"! But even if your past sins COULD be paid for, and actually WERE paid for, you would remain the same old sinner as before.

What we all need is a change of heart and mind. That's what repentance is: a turning from the old ways to a new life in Christ Jesus! We need continually to die to the self-serving nature. The apostle Paul understood this; he said, "I die daily." We need our sinful natures HEALED so that we will no longer serve sin, but by the God's enabling grace work righteousness.

God is not going to take sinful people into heaven on the basis that their past sins were paid for. God will receive them not on the basis of "positional righteousness" but only on the basis of ACTUALLY righteousness. And we become ACTUALLY righteous by the enabling grace of God (Titus 2) made available by the magnificent sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. We appropriate this grace by working together WITH God to make it happen. We can't do it on our own. But neither will God do it independently of our coöperation.

What's the use of having past sins paid for, if we are not changed?

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

[Homer]

Paidion,

You quoted:

He himself bore [endured] our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24)

I think you are mistaken in your understanding of what Christ did on the cross. Sins are not "things" that can be put in a sack and carried to the cross. Sins, after being commited, no longer exist. The guilt and consequences on the sinner remain, and I might add, consequences on those effected by the sin may or may not remain. For example, if a person has told a damaging lie, how would that be carried to the cross?

Not only that, Jesus was the lamb without spot or blemish, as required of a sacrifice. He himself was oviously unmarred by sin. What He bore, or endured, was the punishment for our sins. In Peter's words we have a metonym, a figure of speech common in the scriptures.

It can't be done. Past wrongdoing cannot be "paid for"!

So why would our Lord characterize our sins as "debts"? But in one sense you are correct; we can never pay for our sins.

[jeremiah]

good morning homer,

. Sins are not "things" that can be put in a sack and carried to the cross. Sins, after being commited, no longer exist..... What He bore, or endured, was the punishment for our sins.

i think if one were consistent with this sort of clinical hyper analysis of such things, then they would have to cry "nonsense" at any chance of sacrificial efficacy , just skimming through the sacrificial system of the old covenant (irrespective that it would one day be done away with). how do you then understand , "he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."?

btw, sorry i never responded to your comment. i figured it would all come in the wash of a post that i'm working on, but can't seem to make time for yet. i didn't mean to ignore you.

grace and peace

[jriccitelli]

Paidion, You are trying to deny clear biblical principles by saying the English words of Justice, judgment, death and such are not as they seem nor correctly translated (i.e. Fri. mar15, etc), and you tell us no where does it say ‘Christ suffered and died in order to appease the wrath of an angry God’. We tell you scripture doesn’t say we are healed from ‘sin sickness’ either and you think you can get away with ‘By his wounds you have been healed’(!?)

After your astonishing statement about the context of 2Peter 2:9 on the ‘My case…’ thread, and similarly your understanding about the context of Isaiah 53, I just really don’t see how you do it.

Isaiah 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being [fell] upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us have turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke [was due] 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting [Him] to grief; If He would render Himself [as] a guilt offering, He will see [His] offspring, He will prolong [His] days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see [it and] be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors (Isa.53)

Paidion wrote; In this context, is it not rather obvious that Peter understood Christ's death as a healing of sin sickness?

I already responded to this; the verse is a contrast between wounds and healing, what would seem to be a paradox is actually the answer. Healing is a physical and symbolic example of something spiritual, or within our soul and mind. Like leprosy was a visual and physical symbol of the unclean heart of man, leprosy did not mean the person was any more of a sinner than anyone else.
It would be fine if you understood Christ died for our sins – and – healed us by resurrecting us, as this old nature will never be ‘healed’ from sin. The first Adam must die and unless we are raised in the new Adam we are still dead sinners. There is no healing of the old sin nature; we must be given a new nature. And that happens when we are raised with Christ and put into His body, not our old body.

Yet you continue to argue against the idea that sins had a price to be paid, a penalty, a pardon, a substitution, a appeasement, etc. and death itself.
His Death on the Cross did a number of things, and it accomplished all these things primarily because it appeased Gods wrath, which was ours. The context of Isaiah declares this as bright as day, and your not acknowledging it, you continue to write, i.e.;

Now I know that many interpret this as meaning that Jesus died to "redeem us" or "buy us back" from Satan or God or someone. However, the first thing to realize is that "giving his life" does not refer to His giving his life by dying, but to His giving his life while living, that is, He gave his whole life to serve others’

Not his "substitutionary death" but in these passages his "substitutionary life". By serving others, he substituted his own life for theirs. He lived their lives vicariously by using his own life to serve them. (Paidion pg3.)
It can't be done. Past wrongdoing cannot be "paid for"! But even if your past sins COULD be paid for, and actually WERE paid for, you would remain the same old sinner as before’ (Paidion)

In our new life and future we will be healed as a result of the death, sure, and his death also opens the door to receiving blessings and wisdom, assurance, adoption, etc, etc, not 'only' healing from sins slavery, control.
Healing is symbolic and metaphoric of being freed from sins nature, but death, substitution, and the penalties are 100% real, as was the Cross, and not symbols of anything but the 'reality' of death, payment, justice and judgment itself.
Death clearly is the payment for a penalty, if not the penalty itself. How does the death of a lamb heal anyone? The lamb was ‘required by God’ to Abraham, and Moses (Abel too?), and it should be clear to any Israelite and anyone reading this book.
Of course sins cannot be undone, this is not the point, this is God’s way and Law to prevent any further sin. God demanded a payment, God made a Law, God made a way, the way must be obeyed, there is no other way, Jesus is the Way. Jesus is our sacrifice, IF you trust in His blood to cover you.
Otherwise nothing stands between you and the wrath of the Lamb, but your own works.

If a law is made, say for speeding, and you speed and are caught, you don’t escape the fine (at least the second time or third time) 'because' of your logic that ‘sins cant be paid for’ (in other words; try telling that to the Judge). They don’t have laws so that sins can be undone or healed. Neither does anyone think the purpose of a fine is to erase the sin, or heal the sinner.

Laws may or may not prevent sinful man from sinning again, but God and society must have law, and a law is not a law without a penalty. This is something that most people understand.
The Law of Christ is; ‘Unless you believe, you will die in your sins’.

[Homer]

Hi jeremiah,

You asked:

how do you then understand , "he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."?

"He treated Him as though He was a sinner, although He never sinned, so that we might be considered, in Him, as as having His righteousness."

The syntax might be a bit tricky in the Greek.

God bless!

[Paidion]

God demanded a payment...

All I can say is, you can go on believing what you have been taught, though the Bible doesn't teach it. Personally, I don't even see how the Bible can be interpreted to teach that "God demanded a payment." Nowhere does it say that nor, in my opinion, even implies it. I once believed than nonsense myself. But now that I have been enlightened, I will go on believing what I have discovered in the scriptures and in the early Christian writings which throw light upon the scriptures.

You cannot see how I can read Isaiah 53 and not understand it as you do. But I am sure my exegesis of it would be futile as far as you are concerned.

The historic Jewish position is that the suffering servant is Israel. How do you suppose they come to that conclusion? It's not too hard to see why. Israel is indeed called Yahweh's servant in many contexts. Indeed, Israel is even called God's son. The following passage is the first instance which I found of the latter:

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.”’ (Exodus 4:22,23)

Even the OT scripture quoted in the New Testament, "Out of Egypt have I called my son," doubtless referred to Yahweh bringing Israel out of Egypt and into the promised land. But Matthew says that Jesus having been taken to Egypt by his parents to escape Herod's decree, and returning again fulfilled this statement. The early Christian understanding was that whenever something which occurred in the life of Christ fitted an Old Testament saying or prophecy, then the event in Christ's life fulfilled that statement or prophecy. Orthodox Jewish believers would argue against the Christian position. I don't; I am a Christian. So I accept that the death of Christ fulfills Isaiah 53 even if the original intent was a reference to Israel. But what I don't accept is that the details of that prophecy indicate penal substitution or appeasement to God. Nor do I accept the horrendous belief that God forsook His Son on the cross, and that He took pleasure in seeing Him suffer.

It seems that much of modern evangelical and fundamentalist teaching implicitly, though not explicitly, portrays God as as ogre, and that Christ died on the cross to save us from God and His wrath. Jesus on the other hand, taught His disciples that the Father was good, causing his sun to shine and his rain to fall on both the righteous and the unrighteous, and that the Father is kind to ungrateful and evil people (Luke 6:35). Jesus taught His disciples to do the same, pray for their enemies, loving them, lending to them and expecting nothing in return. He said that if they do that they truly show themselves to be sons of the heavenly Father. (Luke 6:35).

[dwilkins]

My point in my earlier post was to predict about where this conversation would go (which is incoherent quibbling about personal righteousness and salvation when that isn't primarily the point in most of the passages usually associated with it). In the last few pages I haven't seen any serious engagement of the theme of national sin or national redemption, which was a major part of the Biblical narrative. There is an interesting argument to be made that national issues were meant to be metanarrative for all mankind. But, at the very least the national issues themselves should be part of the discussion. Why do you think that Christ told the Pharisees that they would pay for the murders of the prophets starting with Abel? Was this because they'd personally sinned by killing Abel? Why do you think that Caiaphas prophesied in his role as the high priest that Jesus' death would be a substitution that would keep the Romans from destroying the nation? There is no mention of this substitution being meaningful for the Gentiles, only the Jews and those who'd been scattered by the Assyrians. There are two stories of atonement and redemption that are going on in the Biblical narrative. There is some type/antitype overlap. But, I don't see any real engagement of the literal type that is the source of the majority of the narrative we have in scripture, which has inevitably resulted in confusion due to totally ignoring the context of these passages.

As far as Isaiah 53 goes, I'll post again the Septuagint version of it. I think it more accurately represents the Hebrew behind the Old Testament of the first century:

Isa 53:1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Isa 53:2 We brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.
Isa 53:3 But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed.
Isa 53:4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.
Isa 53:6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.
Isa 53:7 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.
Isa 53:8 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.
Isa 53:9 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.
Isa 53:10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
Isa 53:11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.
Isa 53:12 Therefore 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; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.

Doug

[jeremiah]

hello Doug, if incoherent quibbling seems a fair summary of this thread to you, maybe you might want to start a thread on national redemption and new perspectivism. it seemed to me that the thrust of this thread was much more narrowly focused than a broader theme of national redemption. if you think passages are being cited ignoring a broader context, then please explain.

grace and peace to you.