Did Jesus Christ die for our sins?

[redleghunter]

Been seeing on Christian only threads some doubts that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

I know this may be shocking to many.

We can pack away various atonement explanations as we know there are differences but I ask how can a Christian read the New Testament and not conclude Jesus Christ was crucified and died for our sins.

By logical extension and explicitly explained in the New Testament the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sins (1 John 1:7)

This also:

This also: The Blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins.


Colossians 1:20

Acts of the Apostles 20:28

Ephesians 1:7

Hebrews 9:14

Hebrews 9:22

1 John 1:7

Hebrews 10:19

Hebrews 13:12

Leviticus 17:11

Luke 22:20

Matthew 26:28

Revelation 1:5

Revelation 7:14

Revelation 12:11

Romans 5:9

Romans 3:24-25

1 Peter 1:18-19

1 Corinthians 11:24-30

 

[mukk_in]

Amen, sir. Hard to believe why anyone would doubt that Christ died for our sins.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I voted yes.

I would agree that "atonement theories" can be problematic. Some include things I would not agree with, most fall short by in themselves limiting too much what Christ's death did accomplish. But it certainly is included that He died to redeem/heal us from the condition we find ourselves in due to sin (especially death!).

 

[Strathos]

Which Christians have been saying no? Everyone on the poll so far voted yes.

 

[Tolworth John]

Just to be pedantic:-
Jesus died and rose again to save us from the penalty of our sins.
He didn't do it to save, as in collect them.

He paid the legal penalty of shame, death and separation from God.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Of course Jesus died for our sins. How can a "Christian" say any differently? There are many passages in the NT that say that Christ died for our sins. 1 john 2:2 is an example.

 

[redleghunter]

Which Christians have been saying no? Everyone on the poll so far voted yes.

You want me to 'name names?' I think that would be a violation of site rules.

 

[Strathos]

You want me to 'name names?' I think that would be a violation of site rules.

You could PM me links to the threads.

 

[redleghunter]

You could PM me links to the threads.

Yes perhaps I could.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If the threads are public, there's no reason I can see why you can't post a link to them publicly here.

Nothing should be publicly shared that was written in a private message. And I try not to quote anyone into a different thread than the one they posted in without their permission.

But links to a public thread isn't protected or bad form that I can see. I'm curious myself if it's some variation in belief, or misunderstood communication, or what.

Probably better to discuss publicly than privately in fact - if everything so far has been public.

 

[redleghunter]

If the threads are public, there's no reason I can see why you can't post a link to them publicly here.

Nothing should be publicly shared that was written in a private message. And I try not to quote anyone into a different thread than the one they posted in without their permission.

But links to a public thread isn't protected or bad form that I can see. I'm curious myself if it's some variation in belief, or misunderstood communication, or what.

Probably better to discuss publicly than privately in fact - if everything so far has been public.

Ok I guess we can get it started then:

Jesus could have, and did forgive sins without any cross, and without any shed blood.

 

[bling]

You really need to do an Greek word study of "for", because it rarely conveys the idea of "instead of".
Yes Christ died "for" (because of) our sins, but not instead of us.

 

[redleghunter]

You really need to do an Greek word study of "for", because it rarely conveys the idea of "instead of".
Yes Christ died "for" (because of) our sins, but not instead of us.

Why is your word study more accurate to hundreds of Greek scholars? What did they get wrong?

Why are you choosing a different definition?

Sure you can argue Christ died because of our sins, but you cannot ignore (1) it is His Blood which cleanses us from sin and (2) He died in place of us. That would mean for our sins.

 

[bling]

Why is your word study more accurate to hundreds of Greek scholars? What did they get wrong?

Why are you choosing a different definition?

Sure you can argue Christ died because of our sins, but you cannot ignore (1) it is His Blood which cleanses us from sin and (2) He died in place of us. That would mean for our sins.

I have no problem with the English word "for" being used, but the gift is "for" you and not instead of you. The Greek word at the time translated "for" lots of times is anti which can mean instead of and in exchange for, but "anti" is used only once in relation to atonement (recorded twice) and used 20 other times, so other Greek words not meaning "instead of" are translated "for" when talking about atonement. The time "anti" is used in the discussion of atonement is when Christ in Mark and Matt "his life as a ransom for (anti) many" which is like when the coins were found to pay the temple tax for (anti) Peter and Christ. Which conveys the idea of "payment for". The "ransom" is paid to ("for") the undeserving kidnapper of a child of God which would not be God or satan, so again the "for" (anti) does not mean instead of in this case.
If the Spirit wanted to convey the meaning of instead of he should have best used the Greek word "anti".

The blood does cleans me from my sins, so I am the blood thirsty person wanting Christ's blood out of his veins available for me (John 6) and God has provide just that.

Christ did not die in our place.

 

[redleghunter]

I have no problem with the English word "for" being used, but the gift is "for" you and not instead of you. The Greek word at the time translated "for" lots of times is anti which can mean instead of and in exchange for, but "anti" is used only once in relation to atonement (recorded twice) and used 20 other times, so other Greek words not meaning "instead of" are translated "for" when talking about atonement. The time "anti" is used in the discussion of atonement is when Christ in Mark and Matt "his life as a ransom for (anti) many" which is like when the coins were found to pay the temple tax for (anti) Peter and Christ. Which conveys the idea of "payment for". The "ransom" is paid to ("for") the undeserving kidnapper of a child of God which would not be God or satan, so again the "for" (anti) does not mean instead of in this case.
If the Spirit wanted to convey the meaning of instead of he should have best used the Greek word "anti".

The blood does cleans me from my sins, so I am the blood thirsty person wanting Christ's blood out of his veins available for me (John 6) and God has provide just that.

Christ did not die in our place.

Ok that should be a response for the imputed righteousness or atonement threads we are on. However given the OP would you disagree with "Christ died for our sins?" Because we do know Jesus Christ bore our sins:

1 Peter 2: ESV
22He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore 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.

 

[redleghunter]

I have no problem with the English word "for" being used, but the gift is "for" you and not instead of you.

Wanted to pluck this out as it is very insightful. Perhaps bring it up later here or back on the other two threads. I say insightful because you do hit upon the gift is for us. But as in Leviticus 16 there are two 'things' going on with Christ's crucifixion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Been seeing on Christian only threads some doubts that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

I know this may be shocking to many.

We can pack away various atonement explanations as we know there are differences but I ask how can a Christian read the New Testament and not conclude Jesus Christ was crucified and died for our sins.

By logical extension and explicitly explained in the New Testament the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sins (1 John 1:7)

This also:

This also: The Blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins.


Colossians 1:20

Acts of the Apostles 20:28

Ephesians 1:7

Hebrews 9:14

Hebrews 9:22

John 1:7

Hebrews 10:19

Hebrews 13:12

Leviticus 17:11

Luke 22:20

Matthew 26:28

Revelation 1:5

Revelation 7:14

Revelation 12:11

Romans 5:9

Romans 3:24-25

1 Peter 1:18-19

1 Corinthians 11:24-30

While I agree with you that Christian Soteriology should primarily be seen in terms of "payment" in Jewish, biblical terms reflecting all that we find in the Old Testament, I do still think there is some space for the "layering in" of other forms of Christian soteriology. Of course, this might mean those other forms would have to be modified a bit or re-articulated to accommodate the various motifs within the overall matrix, but I don't think all of them are by all necessity to be excluded.

{By the way, I voted "yes" in your poll}

 

[Phil 1:21]

Amen, sir. Hard to believe why anyone would doubt that Christ died for our sins.

I suspect part of the problem may lie in how few "Christians" actually study scripture. I know just speaking for myself, it was quite a shock when I stopped relying on others to tell me what scripture said and actually read it for myself.

 

[redleghunter]

While I agree with you that Christian Soteriology should primarily be seen in terms of "payment" in Jewish, biblical terms reflecting all that we find in the Old Testament, I do still think there is some space for some "layering in" of other forms of Christian soteriology. Of course, this might mean those other forms would have to be modified a bit or re-articulated to accomodate them within the overall matrix, but I don't think all of them are by all necessity to be excluded.

{By the way, I voted "yes" in your poll}

As in, for example, vicarious atonement? If so we can perhaps expand on that later.

 

[bling]

Ok that should be a response for the imputed righteousness or atonement threads we are on. However given the OP would you disagree with "Christ died for our sins?" Because we do know Jesus Christ bore our sins:

1 Peter 2: ESV
22He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore 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.

Christ died for our sins, but that can also be stated "Christ died because of our sins".

Christ "bore" our sins, so does that mean Christ became a sinner?
Did Christ take on the consequences of our sins and suffer as if He had committed our transgressions?
Please note it is we who might "die to sin", so how better to do that then by being crucified (die) with Christ?
The idea of baring something is carrying it away and not really taking the load into the barer or becoming.