Question #1:

Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I have been looking at the life of Jesus and why He had to be born as a human, and why that was important. I have a question about Christ's death on the cross for us.

I understand that Jesus did not physically bleed to death and I understand that Jesus died spiritually for our sins.

In the Christology study you write this:

"This is why scripture emphasizes that Christ “bore our sins in His body”. For it was in His genuine human body that He suffered spiritual death, enduring the entire penalty for all sin."

Did Jesus' physical death on the cross satisfy any part of God's judgement or just Christ's spiritual death, accomplished since He did have a physical body?

Jesus died spiritually to atone for all human sin, and He could only do this with a genuine human body since God can't have contact with sin and God can't die. So did the way Jesus died physically also atone for our sin in some way?

The work of salvation was complete and then Jesus died - so He could be glorified and resurrected, right??

What am I missing?

Respectfully,

Response #1: 

Always good to hear from you, my friend.

Re: "Did Jesus' physical death on the cross satisfy any part of God's judgement or just Christ's spiritual death, accomplished since He did have a physical body?" Jesus' physical death certainly did fulfill the prophecies regarding the Suffering Servant (e.g., Ps.22:7-18; Is.52; 53). Also, our Lord's entire ordeal after being betrayed serves to show us something about what it cost Him to bear the sins of the world. We couldn't see and we can't know just how agonizing paying the price for a single human sin was (and I have speculated that it probably eclipsed all human suffering put together to die for just one sin – and He died for them all), but the contemporary witnesses could see and relate this to us and so by reading the gospels we can to some degree appreciate what Jesus suffered in being betrayed and abandoned and denied, the horrible trials He had to go through, and all of the suffering before and during the crucifixion. It does give us some small perspective of the price to be paid in taking away our sins by being judged for them in the darkness.

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?"
Psalm 22:1 KJV

Re: "So did the way Jesus died physically also atone for our sin in some way?" No, but as explained above it gives us some small appreciation for the price He had to pay to do so – analogous to the slaughter of an innocent lamb under the Law, which sacrifice represented His spiritual death (though it itself did not propitiate sin: Heb.10:4).

Re: "The work of salvation was complete and then Jesus died - so He could be glorified and resurrected, right??" Correct. When our Lord "gave up His spirit" which occasioned His physical death (Jn.10:17-18), He said, "It has been completed/accomplished" (Jn.19:30), meaning salvation, the bedrock of the plan of God (see the link).

Re: "What am I missing?" I don't think you're missing a thing! But do feel free to write back in case I missed the gist of your question.

If I don't hear from you again until then, have a blessed and wonderful Christmas!

In Jesus our Redeemer,

Bob L.

Question #2: 

Good morning Dr L,

I am on the Bible Study and I have a question. Here is the thing, please don't misunderstand, the Lord dying for our sins, even for one of them, is suffering no one alive on earth ever went through. It is just that you say that the lead up to the cross was also beyond what any one else suffered. Is this simply because of who He is (having to do it while resisting temptation to use His Deity? I just, I hope this doesn't come off wrong, because I do love the Lord and I do believe His Death, even the smallest moment of it, is worse than all human suffering on this earth. Just that on the lead up, lots of people, and I am being detailed to explain, grow up raped and whipped, finger cut off, toes cut off, and treated like animals and such. Worse than just being in poverty. There are also the humans that lived before the Flood dealing with the half demon violence against them. And much worse things that I won't say. Are you saying that the time from His Birth to the Crucifixion was worse than any one has suffered because of who He is (having to do it while resisting temptation to use His Deity, or something like that?

Respectfully,

Response #2: 

Our Lord's pre-cross gauntlet was concentrated into just a few hours and contained all manner of things that no one else could have endured AND not sinned (links: "The Seven Trials of Christ"; and "The Crucifixion"). For example, it says at Isaiah 52:14 that "his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness", which tells me that such abuse would have killed anyone else – and it is inconceivable to me that anyone else could have endured such physical abuse AND not committed a single sin of the heart (or tongue; Is.53:7; Acts 8:32). Within those few hours everyone betrayed, abandoned, forsook Him and denied Him. He was wrongly arrested, accused and convicted in seven different trials. He was mocked and spit upon and treated with utmost contempt. He was made to carry His own cross to His death, crucified and put on public display, made to see the loss of everything He had, mocked and berated – and yet no sin was found in Him despite all of that.

So these observations are not made to suggest that other people in the history of the world haven't had it rough or haven't been subjected to all manner of abuse and violence and cruelty. What is clear, however, is that no other human being could have withstood what He withstood in those few hours before He was judged for the sins of the world, either physically or emotionally (let alone both) AND maintained perfect sinlessness . . . which He had to do in order to be our Savior.

And as you correctly have learned, paying the price for the least human sin cost more than all that. The price Jesus paid for us truly is unimaginably great. And we will praise Him forever for it (see the link: "The Blood of Christ").

In Him,

Bob L.

Question #3: 

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

Your material has been utilized by my family for many years now, and I will search at times when there is something I would like greater understanding on. I appreciate your scholarly and learned approach to explaining the Word, even if sometimes I skim it a bit out of laziness. And I appreciate very much your Biblical approach to seemingly all that you write.

I rather stumbled onto your Bible Basics 4a: Christology study this evening and found it very interesting reading about His spiritual death, and that being what actually resulted in salvation. This makes perfect sense as to why He said, "It is finished."

This being so, why was it then necessary for him to undergo a physical death as well? The reasons I have thought of are firstly, he was fully human, and in Adam all die; secondly, it was perhaps necessary to secure for us the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 has come to mind while thinking about this. Am I on track here?

Thanks very much for your ministry,

Response #3: 

Good to make your acquaintance. Thanks for the background and for your kind words.

Why did our Lord have to "give up His spirit" and die physically after His victory over sin? I suppose the alternative would have been for Him to have been immediately resurrected via the same sort of living resurrection those of us who survive the Tribulation will receive at His second advent return (link). God could certainly have done things this way – nothing is impossible for God. But to have done things this way would not have fulfilled many prophesies, including ones made by our Lord Himself about spending three days and nights in the grave and rising from the dead (to be the pattern for us in resurrection). That time frame was sufficient to leave no doubt about our Lord's actual, physical death, and in doing so made His resurrection on that glorious Sunday morning all the more amazing and irrefutable. If Christ had not died physically, what would have been "the proof" of the resurrection at all? So it does make sense to me that the plan of God had things working out this way – to fulfill all prophecy and for our benefit, giving us confidence that we likewise will be raised on that great day to come. That, after all, is THE good news, victory over death by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ who was "delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Rom.4:25 NIV).

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11 NKJV

Knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you.
2nd Corinthians 4:14 NKJV

Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel.
2nd Timothy 2:8 NKJV

Looking forward with great anticipation for our own resurrection as one Church to be together with our Lord forever!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #4: 

Thank you. This makes sense, especially "for our benefit, giving us confidence that we likewise will be raised on that great day to come." And now other verses are brought to mind, and some more searching has brought forth Hebrews 2:14-15 -

"Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives."

Thank you kindly, sir, for your time and experience in answering this.

Response #4: 

Great parallel passage!

It's my pleasure, my friend.

Please do feel free to write any time.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5: 

Understood, agreed, and well said as usual.

Two last things I wanted to ask you- I thought I remember reading a while ago a Saturday post you made where you mentioned that you went from being "a Calvinst, to a Charismatic, to an outcast" or something along those lines. Am I remembering correctly because I can't find that post but do believe I read something like that? Were you really a Charismatic at one point? If so, what was your experience with that like? The Calvinist ordeal I know makes perfect sense since you grew up in a Presbyterian church (who generally tend to be Calvinists). But charismatic?

Finally, (and this should be all I've got this time), I totally agree that it was the spiritual death of Christ that paid for our sins and not His literal physical blood that accomplished this (the blood was symbolic of Christ's spiritual death because we weren't literally washed in our Lord's physical blood). Maybe I asked this already (once again, perhaps it is too simple of a question), but why would our Lord need to die physically to die spiritually? Yes, I know that "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins" and that all the animal sacrifices looked forward to and symbolized Christ's death on the cross. But why the need to die on a cross if Christ could have just given up His Spirit at any time since He didn't actually die physically on His own (bleed to death) but exhaled His own Spirit? Maybe I sound dense but I've never actually really thought about this before despite being aware of and agreeing with your take on the blood of Christ. Was the crucifixion an act that had to take place because it was all our sins being crucified with Christ? But how is that not symbolic as well? Would the physical suffering (death included) be necessary only for symbolism sake? I just don't understand the details of how the spiritual required the physical and how they both went hand in hand. Admittedly, I'm a bit embarrassed to ask this (especially as a teacher myself, being honest) but as I already said, I've never really taken the time to think this through. Also, forgive me if you've already answered this on the site but I just don't remember reading why this was the case unless my memory is failing.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Your brother in Christ,

Response #5: 

Let's just say I had my run-ins (at a very trying time in my life when I had just lost someone very near and dear).

Our Lord never sinned. Seeing as how the early generations of mankind lived nearly a thousand years outside of Eden and with a sin nature at that, if our Lord had not voluntarily given up His spirit, I would imagine He would still be physically alive and on earth today, not resurrected (because He hadn't suffered physical death), not glorified or ascended or seated (so we wouldn't have the Holy Spirit), not, that is, having fulfilled all the prophesies about Him, namely, that He would rise from the dead on the third day, etc. So it was essential for Him to give up His physical life in this first body in order for the furtherance of the plan of God. He had already accomplished His great mission of salvation, so there was no longer any need for Him to remain on earth in a non-resurrected state. As our Lord Himself says:

"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."
John 10:17-18 NKJV

In Jesus the First-fruits of the resurrection we all long for,

Bob L.

Question #6: 

Hi Dr L,

I haven't seen any ants for the past few days, and I did find my hearing aid so yay! So that is good. Tell me how you have been doing?

Funny enough, I didn't see you as a more wild driver. Don't mean a value judgement on that (pros and cons). Just I like to think about personalities. But when someone gets learned enough (and as I say I wish I had all your learning), they broaden out too much to tell their core personality (it balances anything out). I mean everyone has strengths and weaknesses, so I don't mean anything bad by that. I certainly overdid the book learning, and underdid the actual living, but anyway...

I just wanted to tell you that I am going through the Soteriology series and getting a lot out of it. So so far, the Hamartiology series and this one-I am getting a lot out of. But I think I will get more out of the others next go around (I usually read things multiple times because sometimes my mind works oddly and I don't understand).

This may not be a big deal, but I was reading a certain part in the Soteriology section, where it was saying confession is not a means to salvation. And the quote of Romans 10:10. But this seems to be more like, at the very least, another avenue to the same thing. If it is confession unto salvation, that seems the same as believing unto righteousness. We can pray silently, so I would imagine we can confess/believe inwardly silently. But the spoken confession just seems another avenue of the same thing as believing inwardly. Because the verse seems to set it up in a parallel (like in psalms or proverbs where you have the same thing written in a slightly different way one line, and then another). Maybe I need to let it absorb more-am I misunderstanding something?

p.s., I'm a little tired since it has been three or four really tough weeks, but things are looking up – so color me "doing well".

Response #6: 

Well not "wild" . . . exactly. I do need to watch it a bit more out there on the road, truth to tell.

Great that you found your hearing aid! An answer to prayer!

This is probably the verse you're thinking of:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified (i.e., is considered righteous by God) by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Romans 3:28 NKJV

You can find more at this link in BB 4A: "Justification".

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

I did look at those. But those verses don't seem to say (from what I can see) specifically that it is the Lord's righteousness that is imputed to us. I am still trying to figure out if that is the implied/other side of the coin of being the sacrifice for us? I guess, 'what exactly is righteousness?' is the first question. Do you have a link that goes into what righteousness is?

Response #7: 

"Imputation" is an Augustan teaching based upon a misunderstanding of the Greek text of Romans 5:13 and back-theologized to Romans 4:6 and other passages where logizomai is used. Like almost all of Augustine's teachings, it has confused the church-visible for centuries upon centuries. Scripture says that God considers us righteous – that is, not liable for condemnation – because of our faith . . . our faith in Christ who died for all of our sins to take away that liability. But there is no "magical deposit" of some sort of pixie-dust into us. Not in scripture, anyway. It's more of a judicial concept: we are innocent because we are standing on Christ's work and not our own. In theology, this is known as "justification", i.e., the act of God considering us righteous because of our faith in Christ.

Links:

The so-called imputation of Adam's sin

Justification (in BB 4A)

And here is something from BB 3B:

Made righteous in Christ: By virtue of being in Jesus Christ through faith, God now considers us righteous and no longer sinful, possessing as we do not our own self-righteousness, but the genuine righteousness of our very own Lord and Savior through our position in Him (Rom.3:21-24; 3:28; 4:4-5; 4:13; 5:1; 5:8-9; 8:1; 9:30-31; 10:6; 2Cor.5:21; Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8-9 Phil.3:9; Heb.11:7; cf. Jer.33:16).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8:  

Hi Dr Luginbill,

[omitted]

Anyway. So a clear way to think of justification really is that we are sinners and we, or someone, has to pay the penalty and cleanse us of our sins and sin nature? And so when you say "God's own perfect righteousness credited to us" it more looking at that He is able to pay the penalty because of this said perfect righteousness, right? When people say that they have the Lord's righteousness, it doesn't mean that they literally have credit for His Good Work (or shouldn't mean that), but that they have the perfect payment for their sin kind of thing.

Do I understand correctly?

Thanks for your help,

Response #8: 

Justification means that when the Father looks at us He sees us as righteous, that is, not sinful, because we have believed in His Substitute who died for our actual sins, Jesus Christ our Savior (aka we are "justified by faith in Christ": cf. Gen.15:6). Paying the penalty is usually called atonement; Christ buying us free from our sins, redemption; making peace between us and the Father through the cross, reconciliation. These salvation teachings are all collected and explained at the link: "The Saving Work of Jesus Christ" in BB 4A.

Good to see you're getting a little rest. Hope your Monday went OK.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Dr. Luginbill

I regret not writing you sooner and letting you know how deeply I appreciate your Hebrews study and the audio files provided by Chris B. The voice of whomever R. Griffin is, has surly captured the eloquence of your writing. Its amazing, stupendous and down right breath-taking at times! Glory be to God for the great work you both have done.

I have a question on the text copied below. I thought it was a profit that represented God to the people and a priest that represents the people to God. Am I reading this wrong or have I confused the terms?

"A Merciful and Faithful Priest: This is the first mention in Hebrews of Christ's priesthood, an extremely important doctrine that will form the superstructure of most of what Paul has to say later about the replacement of the Law through Christ's victory on the cross. A priest is an individual selected by God to represent Him to human beings, a go-between, a mediator who, on account of his close relationship to God, is given His message to speak to the people of God at large."

Keep on marching!

Response #9: 

How's teaching your grandchildren going?

The work is all Chris' – I just upload the files he's labored over. N.B., according to Chris, "Russell" is not a real person but a construct of voices put together by software engineers.

Regarding priests and prophets, what you say is not a bad way to think about it. The latter was someone who received messages from the Lord and passed them on to the people, sometimes written down, sometimes not. But prophets were not go-betweens or intermediaries the way priests were, men who were symbolic of THE intermediary, Jesus Christ. He was and is both priest, THE High Priest, and Prophet, THE Word of God Himself incarnate. So when we say prophet we're thinking of the Message; when we say priest we're thinking of the Substitute. Jesus was and is both, the ultimate type to who both of these human priests and prophets are anti-types.

Lots more on all this in the Hebrews series (link).

Thanks for all your good words, my friend!

"Keep on marching!" Amen!

Wishing you and your family a really wonderful Thanksgiving.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10: 

Hello Brother

Like to ask you a question what's the definition of begotten and 1st John 5:18. I know what John 3:16 begotten means only one but would it have any similarity to 1st John 5:18 has in begotten meaning only one as a group of body believers? Could you enlighten me on this thank you

Response #10: 

The two passages have different words with different meanings. John 3:16 and John 1:18 have in the Greek monogenes which means, as you note, "one and only" and calls attention to Christ's uniqueness (here is a link to where the details on this are discussed: monogenes).

In 1st John 5:18 instead of the adjective monogenes we have the participle of gignomai ("to be born"),  first in the perfect, then in the aorist tense. In both cases it is talking about believers, those spiritually reborn of God, not about our uniquely physically born Lord Jesus Christ.

We know that everyone who is born [again/from above] from God is not [continually] sinning, but the one who is born [again] from God guards himself [against apostasy], and [so] the evil one is not [able to] lay hold of him.
1st John 5:18

Do feel free to write me back if I've somehow missed the point of your question.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #11: 

Hi Bob,

In John 19:34, I read that a Roman soldier thrust a spear into Jesus' side and out came blood and water. In my experience, blood turns dark and thickens moments after death, Scripture gives no indication of the time between the Lord giving up the ghost and the piercing but it had to be after all the chaos accompanying His passing. I've never known water in a corpse.

In John 4:10, the Lord tells the Samaritan woman that He would have given her living water. Should I understand a connection between the two events? That He bled onto the ground?

Also, can I understand that the rending of the temple marked the end of Mosaic law? So many mysteries wrapped in mystery.

I pray all is well with you and yours and the U of L challenge has passed.

In our Lord,

Response #11: 

I'm not a medical doctor (obviously), but I have been told that immediately after death, the blood begins to separate between the sera and the heavier elements of the fluid, so that this "blood and water" event is a known phenomenon. John is given to include this because the "blood and water" are a sign that Christ was indeed a true human being with a genuine human body. This is what John is telling us here in the Spirit, combating an early form of Gnosticism (sometimes called Docetic Gnosticism) which claimed that Christ was not really human and only gave the appearance of humanity. But no "ghost" or "apparition" has blood – and the fact that it had begun to separate proved that this genuine human body had indeed experienced physical death (because this only happens after death). These are both important points in demonstrating the reality of the resurrection. I.e., our Lord's actual/real/genuine human body which had actually died actually did rise from the dead on the third day.

To modern people, all this sometimes seems a bit odd because the stumbling blocks people have today regarding the cross and the resurrection are mostly different. Nowadays unbelievers are more inclined to accept our Lord's human nature but deny that He was also God or that any of the miraculous things mentioned in the Bible ever happened.

The devil is quick to attack the truth from every possible angle, tailoring his lies to the audience he's appealing to at the time.

For the timeline of the events on the cross and the sequence of the events, tying together all the information in all four gospels and elsewhere, please see this link at Ichthys: in BB 4A, "The Crucifixion".

The rending of the veil in the temple after our Lord's spiritual death on the cross symbolizes the opening up of the way of life which the veil represented as closed without the proper sacrifice (the one which happened only on the Day of Atonement).

But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
Hebrews 9:7-8 NKJV

Since the Law's symbolism is all about Jesus and His sacrifice for us, and since He fulfilled all of the Law's "righteous requirements" in dying for us, this event, that is, the supernatural splitting of the veil, certainly should have shown all and sundry that the Law had now been replaced by a new reality. But it even took the apostles a long time to recognize these things (see the link in BB 6B: "The Time of Transition versus the Present Status Quo") . . . and plenty of believers today still don't have this straight – which is what the book of Hebrews is all about, and one of the reasons why it seemed right to me to tackle this book next after finishing Peter and Basics (link to Hebrews home page).

Busy time here and plenty challenging. Thanks in advance for your prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #12: 

Hello Dr. Lugbinbill,

I just have a quick question. In the above referenced email I read this verse from the NASB translation:

"All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us turned to his own way, But the LORD has caused the iniquity[ sin] to fall on Him [Jesus].

According to 2 Corinthians 5:21, it has a similar translation:

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

I am aware that the first past of the above verse should be "He made Him who knew no sin to be a sin offering". Likewise in Isaiah 53:6, what is the correct translation. Many have the idea that Jesus took our sin in Himself, when it was in reality, He took the penalty for our sin, not the sin itself.

Am I correct on my thinking?

Thanks for you help,

Blessings to you always,

Your friend,

Response #12: 

Peter says something very similar to Paul:

. . . who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
1st Peter 2:24 NKJV

The word is indeed "sins" in both instances; that is also the case with Paul in 2nd Corinthians 5:21. In Isaiah 53:6, the word is 'avon, generally translated "iniquity", meaning more the guilt of sin than the sin itself. Of course, distinguishing between these two things is not so easy since the Bible seems to consider them just two sides of the same coin: sin has guilt conjoined with it; guilt is the result of sin from which it cannot be separated. I would resist seeing sin as some kind of a tangible "thing", like a poker chip with a definite value. Sin is something we think or say or do. Only God is capable of keeping complete track of those sins along with the guilt which corresponds to them. This He had to do . . . in order for Jesus Christ to be judged for them. There is most definitely a physical part to this judgment – paying the entire penalty for all sins by being judged for them. That is why Christ needed to have a physical body in order to do so.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
Hebrews 10:5-6 (quoting Ps.40:6-8)

There are obviously many aspects of the spiritual death of our Lord about which we should like to know more, but it is understandable that some of this escapes us, given, for example, that paying the penalty for the least sin of all human history is greater than all that exists – and Christ died for them all.

Best place for more info on this at Ichthys is in BB 4A: "The Blood of Christ" and "The Spiritual Death of Christ".

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #13: 

Hello again, Dr. Luginbill.

Thanks so much for explaining this to me. I had studied your reference to BB 4A about 7 years ago, so this was a refresher for me. I probably need to re-study that again, because it seems I have forgotten some of it. I have studied so much of your teaching, and at the age of 84, I sometimes don't remember all the mountain of information you present. So, I thank you very much for bringing this to my attention, so that I can now easily remember what you wrote in response

May the good LORD bless you and keep you always in good health so you can continue the work that He has directed you.

You are a wonderful teacher, and I wish I could have known about you some 43 years also when I was first Born-Again.

Blessings to you always

Your friend,
P.S. Sure wish I could meet you in person, well maybe some day.

Response #13: 

Thanks for the good words, my friend. Re: not remembering, very few believers can remember everything the Bible teaches without a lot of run-throughs. I re-read these materials myself as well.

We will definitely meet one day, my friend! And it's not that far off at present.

In anticipation of that glorious day.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #14: 

Hi Bob,

It seems to me like you got them all. Looks great!

My questions are still big walls of text (I suppose the only way to fix that is me writing shorter... which is something I've always wanted to have as a skill, but I think I may be sort of hopeless on that score, LOL), but now at least the bold headings and quotes are easier to pick out from the rest of the text, and those were the main improvements I thought would help. Glad to see that it does indeed improve things. I think formatting may be relatively more important for these longer exchanges, since it's easier to get lost in all the words otherwise.

I'm glad the table code worked too. I thought it would, but I wasn't 100% sure.

I'm sorry to hear of the chaos with y'all's cat. I hear a lot about pet-related expenses and hassles from my coworkers, and while I do like furry friends as much as the next person (of the cat and dog variety both), I don't like them enough to put up with the added responsibilities. It makes me chuckle when I think about it---that I'm responsibility-averse enough that even changing kitty litter seems like A Thing To Avoid At All Costs. I don't have plants for much the same reason. I'd probably forget to water them, and they'd all end up dead.

--------------------------

Our Bible study meeting today revisited the topics of these exchanges since many folks seemed interested in the topics, not just me.

I'll try not to have this drag out as long as the initial exchanges, but would you mind giving perspective on a bit of follow-on that came up?

John 8:21-24 says the following:

(21) Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.” (22) This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?” (23) But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. (24) I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

Given the fact of universal atonement, what exactly does "dying in your sin" (verse 21) and "dying in your sins" (verse 24) mean? Is the switch from singular to plural between the verses (that is, from the singular ἐν τῃ ἁμαρτιᾳ ὑμων in verse 21 to the plural ἐν ταις ἁμαρτιαις ὑμων in verse 24) theologically significant?

Possible ways to interpret "dying in your sins":

A) "dying in your sins" = "dying while still enslaved by sin (=not redeemed)"
B) "dying in your sins" = "dying under condemnation for the personal sins themselves (rather than under condemnation for unbelief)"

I believe everything we have discussed (these past exchanges that just got posted) means that (A) is the correct interpretation, not (B). I tried to explain that in our Bible study discussion today, but then got all turned around in my mind when trying to answer if (A) is exactly synonymous with "dying without the sins forgiven." I believe the answer to that is yes (as forgiveness of sins is part of redemption not atonement---cf. Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians Ephesians 1:7?), but I still struggle to articulate it fully/fit it all together in my head.

It's this recurring problem of me not completely grasping how Jesus' payment for human sins upon the cross = propitiation/expiation/atonement = God no longer judging/condemning human beings for personal sins (but only unbelief) is... somehow different from God forgiving the personal sins, which doesn't happen until redemption? I feel somewhat dumb every time I get stuck here, but this has been a pretty long standing point of confusion for me, and even after reading back over both of these past exchanges a few times today, it is still maddeningly unclear to me what the difference is between God not condemning people for the sins and God forgiving the sins.

I don't know if that's any clearer at all than any of the other times I've tried to ask about this? At the very least, I'd be interested to hear your take on the John 8:21-24 passage.

Your friend in Christ,

Response #14: 

Re: "but I think I may be sort of hopeless on that score, LOL" – I resemble that remark!

Re: "added responsibilities" – something to consider . . . before you get married! Exponential difference, after all.

On John 8:21-24, I believe you are correct about (A) and "yes". The singular and plural are similar, "sin in general" (i.e., the sin nature which results in universal condemnation through the sins it produces), and "sins in particular" (i.e., the actual sins each has committed). Because we are human beings, we don't need to have anyone list our sins to prove that we are sinners (sing.); and because of that, we know for certain that each of us does have along list (pl.).

The point, of course, in our Lord saying what He is saying is to defeat on every level any idea that, absent God's forgiveness, any of his interlocutors are going to be spared condemnation after death on the basis of their "good works" or ancestry or self-righteousness – or whatever else they may be relying on "if you do not believe that I am He" (Jn.8:24). In other words, faith in Christ is the only way to avoid dying in sin / dying in sins – dying without being saved from our sins.

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS (He who saves), for He will save His people from their sins.”
Matthew 1:21 NKJV

Sin is the "charge against us", sin is the barrier no one can breach without God's intervention. We are forgiven all sin and redeemed from those sins when we believe in Christ; otherwise we are still "in our sins" and not redeemed (see the link).

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."
Acts 3:19 NKJV

We know from many places in scripture that the atonement is complete and universal (link), but that it has to be appropriated by faith. Absent faith, these individuals were still "in their sins", not redeemed, not saved . . . from their sins or sin (having a sin nature means, of course, eventual physical death with nowhere to go but perdition for those not saved).

So when you say, "forgiveness of sins is part of redemption not atonement", that is exactly right. Redemption is personal, directed toward the individual; Christ's atonement is directed toward sins, all sins, regardless of person.

How goes the podcast effort?

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15: 

Hi Bob,

The podcast format is on hold until the in person launch actually happens. I may not have communicated that, I guess.

I've got the 8-channel mic system to tie into the Zoom meetings mostly set up now, and am working through a few final matters. A video showing people where to park, weeding the flowerbeds, cleaning here and there to get the house ready, and so on. Hopefully we are very close now to that full launch. Your continuing prayers are always appreciated!

------------------------

I read a few pages in the soteriology section of L.S. Chafer's 8-volume systematic theology last night (first time I've cracked a resource external to Ichthys on this issue thus far), but while it was interesting, I did not come away feeling like the switch has been flipped yet. Chafer describes the full work of Christ upon the cross in terms of redemption (Christ's work in relation to sin), reconciliation (Christ's work in relation to man), and propitiation (Christ's work in relation to God/God's Justice). He somewhat briefly remarked (paraphrasing/summarizing based off of memory) that while all three principles have general application even to unbelievers/the world generally, believers experience these things in a different, more complete way. He too directly teaches that forgiveness of sins does not happen until belief. All this didn't seem very different from what you teach, leaving me with the same general underlying confusion.

Tying to explain again that confusion I have:

1) Sin is the "charge against us", sin is the barrier no one can breach without God's intervention. We are forgiven all sin and redeemed from those sins when we believe in Christ; otherwise we are still "in our sins" and not redeemed.

If sin is "still" the charge against unbelieving humans -- not removed until they believe -- then when we say God does not judge or condemn people for their personal sins (because of Christ's payment = atonement), what gives? Did the atonement not remove the charge of sin? What did it do, then, exactly?

2) We know from many places in scripture that the atonement is complete and universal, but that it has to be appropriated by faith. Absent faith, these individuals were still "in their sins", not redeemed, not saved . . . from their sins or sin (the sin nature means of course eventual physical death with nowhere to go but perdition).

I believe that you teach that God does not judge or condemn unbelievers for their personal sins on account of Christ's universal atonement. I'm still having a hard time understanding how that meshes with this statement here that is along the lines of Chrit's atonement does not apply (?) for someone until they believe. Like, if the atonement doesn't apply for them, wouldn't they still be under judgement for their sins?

------------------------

It's not that I don't know what things are true here:

Christ's atonement was universal. God does not judge or condemn unbelievers for their personal sins on account of Christ's universal atonement. Humans are not forgiven their sins until the point of belief = redemption.

But just that I'm having a hard time fitting it all together without getting confused about matters similar to my two questions above.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Your friend in Christ,

Response #15: 

Re: Chafer, it's good to hear that Ichthys is in the main-stream of conservative evangelical theology on major points of doctrine! Since you're using Chafer, if you didn't already notice it, in addition to the volumes that tackle, e.g., Soteriology, he also has, e.g., redemption (and other doctrines) covered in outline form in his final volume before the index (and the coverage is different in many cases from what one finds in the main volume). You might also have a look at Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology under his treatment of soteriology (v.3 in the set I have – I'm sure it's available online somewhere). The fact that "great theologians" in print are a little vague on some of these highly important issues should be an encouragement that rather than a prompt to apologize for actually pushing forward into the truth in an important way. It is a difficult subject to understand in all its glorious detail.

Let me try to approach this in a slightly different way. Christ died for the sins of the entire world. As a result of His spiritual death, all sins have been paid for. But that does not mean that they have been "forgiven". Forgiveness is available for sin but sin is still sin and sin is still a problem. After all, when Christ washed the disciples' feet, He made it clear in His conversation with Peter that being body-washed made them/us "part of Me"; but even so they/we still need the footwashing from time to time, even though we are "body clean". "Not all of you", however, because Judas had not had a salvation bath and so was still "in his sins": he was still subject, that is, to the condemnation due to everyone who refuses to accept the forgiveness that comes by believing in Jesus Christ. And we believers are NOT forgiven the sins we commit after salvation if we fail to confess (very important – which is why it is part of the Lord's prayer we are to offer up daily). So first and foremost there is our status in this world as believer or unbeliever. As believers, we have received forgiveness for salvation; unbelievers have not. As believers, we still need forgiveness of sins committed after salvation, not for our eternal status which does not change as long as we remain believers, but for our experiential status as believers walking in fellowship with the Lord – or not (1Jn.1:5-10).

1) God does not condemn unbelievers for their sins but their sins are still a problem – a barrier to their salvation absent claiming forgiveness through faith in Christ – and thus still can bring on judgment in time, punishment which is not condemnatory. Believers likewise have been forgiven all sin, past present and future, but we are still subject to God's judgment in this world for the sins we commit, punishment which is loving discipline from a loving Father meant to turn us around. Neither we nor they will be condemned for sin in our eternal judgments since Christ has paid for them; but they "did what they did" and we "did what we did", and all of our works in either case will form the basis for our judgments, with unbelievers condemned regardless for lack of faith in Christ (the details merely confirming God's righteousness), and believers being saved regardless, even if "through fire" as all misdeeds and godless works are burned up. The biggest distinction here being that there is no difference in condemnation (the second death is equal for all), but there is in salvation (crowns of rewards for those who fought this fight well). So I guess I would say that sins are still sins; the PENALTY for sins has already been born/paid for by Jesus Christ.

2) Being "in your sins" still is a demonstration of unsaved status. Not being forgiven for salvation means that one is not saved. That is the flip side of the coin of not believing. If we believe, we are saved, our sins are forgiven (but sinning is still an issue in this life); if someone does not believe, then he "is condemned already [pf. "stands condemned"], because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (Jn.3:18 NKJV); and likewise for unbelievers the fact that Christ has paid for their sins does not mean that these are not an issue down here in time. Scripture has plenty to say about the righteousness of God and the just judgment upon unbelievers "in time" for the wrong things that they do. They are condemned eternally for failing to accept Jesus Christ (not redeemed and so not benefitting from the atonement); they are judged "in time" for the sins they commit according to the just judgment of God, just like believers in one sense, but different in the same way that I discipline my son for his good and don't get involved with the neighbor's kid unless he starts tormenting my cat (e.g.).

I hope this helps. The main distinctions are sin (an issue) vs. its eternal penalty (paid by Christ) and the eternal (no one is judged eternally for sins since Christ paid for them) vs. the temporal (there are consequences "down here" for sinning for believers and unbelievers both).

Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you [eternal: salvation through faith in Christ].” And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? “For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” And he arose and departed to his house [temporal: forgiveness and healing in this life].
Matthew 9:2-7 NKJ

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #16: 

Dear Teacher,

Thank you very much for your answer. I was putting together a thought about how God's offer of free access to the water of life is the same as Jesus's offer of living water to the Samaritan woman there and also in John 7:37-38.

I have another thought to run by you. I want to know what you think of my position. It is a response to conversations we were having last Sunday and I am wondering if there is some blind spot I have there.

Your student in Jesus,

Response #16: 

Regarding the attachment, on balance, I agree with everything you have written here, but there are certain things I would put differently for reasons explained.

Re: "That is, even though God is no longer holding that little white lie against them since Jesus has paid for it, Jesus Himself now is." The distinction I make is the one Jesus made when He washed the disciples' feet: bathing the whole body vs. feet only. Believers have received the benefit of Christ's work on the cross and have been redeemed; but sin is still an issue in our fellowship with the Lord while we are down here on earth in this body of sin, and so we need to confess when we sin, "Otherwise you have no part with Me" (Jn.13:8).

Re: "but he invokes the Sacrifice of the Cross to escape the just condemnation for his sin and receive forgiveness whenever he confesses." Our Lord tells us that believers are already "not under condemnation" (Jn.3:18), even if out of fellowship for not confessing sins; we are restored to fellowship when we confess (1Jn.1:6-10).

Re: "So, while the believer is not punished for his sin because he believes in Jesus, the unbeliever is because he does not." Believers ARE disciplined for sin in time; and unbelievers ARE punished for sin in time (but treated in a different way from "sons and daughters", allowed greater leeway, for one thing, since they are not "of the family"); and I would not say that unbelievers are punished for their sins or that the lake of fire is punishment because I don't find that in scripture (Jesus paid the entire penalty for all sins: atonement; see the link). The second death is indeed horrible to contemplate! But it is the place of their own choosing. They have chosen darkness over light; that is what they get. They have opted for cursing instead of blessing; that is what they get. God had other plans for them, but they rejected them – as you put it very well – in their rebellion against Him. As a result . . .

Those who worship worthless idols forfeit the mercy that could be theirs.
Jonah 2:8 NET

Keeping you and yours in my daily prayers, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #17: 

Dear Teacher,

Okay, the first one is to make a distinction between sin being a matter of sanctification now versus salvation?

This second one is a bit like the first? I should phrase it better because it appears to suggest that every time we sin as believers, we have to start over from getting born again, correct? I thought that it might read that way. I'll change it.

About this third bit, I was thinking about two things:

1. That passages like Revelation 21:8 mean that it is because of sin for which the unbeliever rejected forgiveness in Jesus that they will be in the Lake of Fire. That is, they are in the Lake of Fire because they rejected faith in Christ but that faith is necessary because they are sinners. If they were not, they would not be at the Judgment of the Great White Throne in the first place. While then, it isn't just because they are sinners that they are consigned to the Lake of Fire, it is because they have no answer for their sin having rejected the benefit of the payment that Jesus made in their behalf that that is their lot.

2. That 1 Timothy 5:24 may mean that some sins will only be addressed at the Judgment of the Great White Throne. (After some thought about this passage, I'm not so sure. I feel that it was only saying that some sins, like some good works, are obvious in time while others will only become apparent at the Judgment when they are exposed by the Lord. So the issue is not that that is where the consequences will be experienced but that that is where they will be made manifest for all to see. Still, I would like to know what you think of it.)

Thank you for those prayers. We really need them here. The exams have been rough and I'm not doing so hot and it is not helping me in my training at all. We are keeping you in our own prayers too.

Your student in Jesus,

Response #17: 

1) Re: "Jesus now is", is mainly what I was concerned about. All sin has been atoned for by His sacrifice on the cross. But sin is still sin here in this world.

2) Re: "every time we sin as believers, we have to start over from getting born again, correct?" We are only born again, born from above once (cf. Jas.1:18; 1Pet.1:23). So we don't need another bath. We do get out of fellowship in this life – sometimes dramatically so as in the case of the prodigal son – so we do need our feet washed. Like the prodigal, we may be "a long journey away" out of fellowship with the Lord . . . but like him we NEVER lose our status as sons (as long as we don't give up our faith in Him). So prodigal believers need to confess – not to be born into the family again since they never left it.

3.1) "All [people] sin" (Rom.3:23) and Christ has atoned for all sins (1Jn.2:2). So sin is not the issue in eternal judgment of unbelievers; rather, it's the fact that the person in question cannot stand on the atoning work of Christ since he/she has rejected it, and no work of his/hers is sufficient to satisfy God's justice as an alternative. The penalty has been paid for them, but they refused forgiveness. The unbeliever in question, as you rightly put it, is a rebel; they have used the image of God given them not to respond to God but to reject Him by rejecting His will for them in Jesus Christ, so they are rejected in turn.

3.2) Final judgment of believers as well as of unbelievers is likely to be comprehensive, but there is a difference between examining the life of each and holding either responsible for sins; that won't happen as all sins have been paid for by the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross.

I am praying about the exams and health for both of you, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #18:  

Thank you so very much for your prayers, sir! She finished her exams yesterday and she got the results a couple of hours ago. She PASSED!!! Hallelujah!!! That is a huge relief. Hopefully, they'll get the two-month break that was touted so that I'll try to focus a bit more on my own stuff. I'm just worried about the dry spells that come mostly as a result of. If I can manage to handle that, I expect that finally I can shout at my own victory in finishing my training.

About the issues,

I think I understand the thing now. Sin is not the issue because with the Cross, God removed every consideration of it and left only one thing: His Plan and how we choose to fit into it. So, the Judgment is entirely about how we have played a role in His Plan to have an eternal family. If we elected to play no role, then we are essentially garbage since we don't have a place at all in His Eternity. It's not a matter of sin anymore, only one of being a useful part, like a stone, for example, of His eternal House or else quite literally, trash that results from the work of building that House. The trash is just for burning. Its nature is simply useless, so it cannot have a place in the final product. The usefulness of sin in the judgment then is only to demonstrate how the unbeliever did not choose to be a stone in that House rather than a legal matter.

That makes everything make sense to me now. I had to write up some arguments earlier to answer your points, but as I got to the end of everything, it clicked.

Thank you, Sir, for the help. If I have failed somehow to understand everything, please point it out to me again.

Your student in Jesus,

Response #18: 

Please pass on my congratulations – this is wonderful news!

Yes, I think that's it. The only thing to add is that sin is "an issue" in time while we are all still here in the world. Clearly, believers are disciplined for it, and it can be a huge problem if not kept on a very short lease. Unbelievers also are not allowed to do anything they want with impunity (although it often may seem like it; cf. Psalm 37).

Looking forward to celebrating your victory too, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #19: 

Dear Teacher,

Thank you, Sir. Very grateful for your prayers here.

I suppose the question of the eternity of the Lake of Fire then arises. Why does the Bible seem to speak of it as punishment and judgment and condemnation? Also, why does the Lord Jesus talk about remaining in or dying in your sins? Any thoughts on these things?

Your student in Jesus,

Response #19: 

God's enemies get what they deserve – which is what they wanted, a place where they don't have to respond to or obey Him. Of course, since "all blessing flow" from Him alone (e.g., Jas.1:17), being in a place without Him means of necessity being separated from all blessing . . . and thus being in a place of only cursing. This comes about from rejecting Him, the Father, and the only Way to the Father, Jesus Christ who paid for all human sins.

Sins are an issue in restoring fallen mankind to their Creator. Without removing this barrier at the cross, reconciliation was impossible. But since Christ covered all human sin with His blood, that is, by dying for them and paying the penalty for them all, the barrier has been removed (Eph.2:13-18), the door of the house of slavery has been broken open, so to speak, and redemption from our former slavery to sin is available to all. Those who reject this release do not have the benefit of Christ's saving work, however. God set things up in this perfect way so that only those who want an eternity with Him will have that. The Lake of Fire is the alternative the others have chosen by default. They end up there not because of any sin or group of sins they have committed but because they have rejected the Substitute who died for their sins on their behalf, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12 NIV).

That is the eternal perspective, the reason why we are all here on earth, namely, to decide with the image of God we have been given where we desire to spend eternity. Eternal life is free – to us because of Christ's death for us – but it does require our acceptance through our obedience to the gospel and maintenance of faith "firm until the end" (Heb.3:6; 3:14). For hardened hearts who will never of their own free will accept the authority of Christ, the Lake of Fire is the only other possibility.

Sin was the barrier on the "strategic level", and that barrier has been forever breached. But history continues. And here in time, while sin is no longer an impediment to salvation, it continues to be an issue in our lives and in the world at large. Believers are not "in our sins"; these have been forgiven (e.g., Rom.8:15; 1Cor.6:11; 2Pet.1:9); but we still need to confess when we sin as we all do on account of being still in the world, still under attack from the evil one, still residing in bodies of sin, and none of us being perfect in our spiritual walk (Jn.13:8; 1Jn.1:10). Unbelievers are still "in their sins" because they are still enslaved on account of their unwillingness to depart from the prison house, so to speak.

Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you continue in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not continue in the house forever, but a son continues forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."
John 8:31-36 NKJV

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
Romans 6:16-18 NIV

Death without emancipation through redemption results in the second death.

Hope this is helpful, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.