Butch5
Active
I know what you're saying, however that's not what the text says.
Who can forgive sins but God alone?
- Thread starter bdavidc
- Start date
B-A-C
Loyal
Mark 11:25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
Mark 11:26 "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."
Luke 17:3 "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
Luke 17:4 "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
Mark 11:26 "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."
Luke 17:3 "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
Luke 17:4 "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
Rhema
Active
No.
No it doesn't say that.
I beg you to read the text:
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses ; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
(Colossians 2:13-14 KJV)Trespasses were forgiven (and can only be in accordance with the teaching of Jesus), and "the handwriting of ordinances" was nailed to the cross.
The semicolon is important in that it separates two concepts from one another.
Don't you think that reading what is actually written is important so that other false doctrines don't get invented? Your commentary on those two verses composes such a false doctrine because it is not rooted in the text you quote. That's no a condemnation, just a plain observable fact - you mixed two separate concepts together and came up with brown.
Kindly,
Rhema
Rhema
Active
@bdavidc
The Father taught me this 38 years ago, and I fought tooth and nail against this truth for 30 years.
But I understand why. At some point, Christians have supplanted the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul from his later ministry. Jesus is banished to the basement Sunday School rooms for little children, while Paul is taught in the main sanctuary for the grownup adults.
Please, I beg you. Ask a friend. Ask anyone with a good working brain if a debt can be both paid for in full and at the same time be forgiven in full. If a debt is forgiven in full, then there is nothing to be paid (it was forgiven). And if a debt is paid in full, then there is nothing left to forgive.
This is not difficult to understand. But it is difficult for Christians to embrace.
In concerned love,
Rhema
This is a profoundly simple truth, and yet it seems beyond the grasp of Christians to understand - to the point where patently absurd claims are made.
The Father taught me this 38 years ago, and I fought tooth and nail against this truth for 30 years.
But I understand why. At some point, Christians have supplanted the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul from his later ministry. Jesus is banished to the basement Sunday School rooms for little children, while Paul is taught in the main sanctuary for the grownup adults.
And there's the absurd claim.
Please, I beg you. Ask a friend. Ask anyone with a good working brain if a debt can be both paid for in full and at the same time be forgiven in full. If a debt is forgiven in full, then there is nothing to be paid (it was forgiven). And if a debt is paid in full, then there is nothing left to forgive.
This is not difficult to understand. But it is difficult for Christians to embrace.
In concerned love,
Rhema
The first 3 words is enough.
Rhema
Active
Christianity did that millennia ago. But I am glad that I can Talk Jesus here.
The teaching is of the Holy Spirit not the apostles. The apostles preach. Christ the one good teaching master teaches.
bdavidc
Active
I understand your concern, but I believe the confusion here comes from viewing sin merely as a financial transaction, rather than understanding the deeper moral and legal implications of our guilt before a holy God. Imagine you committed a serious crime—say, theft or assault—and you're standing before a judge. You admit your guilt. The judge, being just, cannot simply overlook your crime and say, "You're forgiven, go free." That would be unjust. But now imagine someone steps into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine or take the punishment on your behalf. The judge can now legally let you go—not because justice was ignored, but because it was satisfied. That is what happened at the cross.
The Bible tells us “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22). We broke God’s Law—the Ten Commandments—and stand guilty before Him. Have you ever lied, stolen, or looked with lust? Jesus said looking with lust is committing adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28). If God judges you by His standard, you and I are guilty. But here is the good news: Jesus stepped in and paid our fine with His own blood. As Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” That is why we can be forgiven—because the penalty was paid in full by Christ.
So yes, the debt was paid, and therefore we can be truly forgiven. That’s not a contradiction; it’s a beautiful fulfillment of both justice and mercy. God didn’t just wave our sin away—He took it upon Himself, so He could extend forgiveness legally and lovingly. “He is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26).
bdavidc
Active
This idea of a debt paid to God is for sure a Biblical one. It’s right to carefully examine what Scripture actually says. But when we look at the whole of the Bible, we find that sin is described using several word pictures—legal guilt, moral uncleanness, slavery, wages, and yes, debt. These aren’t contradictions but different ways of communicating the seriousness and consequence of sin from multiple angles. In Matthew 6:12, Jesus teaches His disciples to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” The Greek word used there is opheilēmata, which literally means “debts” or “that which is owed.” Jesus Himself used the language of debt to describe sin, not to support a particular doctrine, but because it was meaningful to the audience.
You mentioned Romans 6:23, where Paul writes, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This speaks to the consequence of sin—it earns death. Yet in other places, Paul also uses legal and transactional language. In Colossians 2:14, he says that God “canceled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.” Again, the concept of a debt is clearly present. It's not imposed by later doctrine—it’s in the text.
Rather than being mutually exclusive, the images of wages and debt both help us grasp the gravity of sin and the beauty of the gospel. Sin is so serious that it earns death; it also puts us in moral debt before a just God. Jesus paid the penalty not to uphold a human theory, but to satisfy divine justice and make forgiveness possible. God didn’t simply overlook sin—He dealt with it at the cross. That’s how He remains “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). The gospel doesn’t twist the Bible—it fulfills it.
Butch5
Active
There's difference between being indebted to someone and sinning against them. Please show a single passage of Scripture that suggests that God requires a payment for sins
Then you may want to consider a more accurate translation. There is no sin debt. The passage is referring to the Law of Moses.
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Bible: King James Col 2:14.
Paul's not speaking of sin debt here. Rather he is saying that Christ, through the cross has removed the Law of Moses
No, it doesn't put us in moral debt to God. The problem is that this idea of Penal Atonement still hangs around after 500 years.
One thing that is Utterly mind blowing is the fact that today we have access to more writings of Biblical history than has ever been available to any group or people and yet Biblical illiteracy is rampant in the church. It's mind blowing how illiterate people are. I would submit that the illiteracy is primarily due in fact to arrogance. People just simply will not consider the concept that they could be wrong. I see it all the time. I see it in forums. I see it in churches. it's all over. Just look at the Trinity threads. People can't even explain the doctrine, but they'll reject 25 different reasons showing why the doctrine is impossible. Will they consider those reasons? Absolutely not. However, with that doctrine, just like this one, Penal Atonement, a simply study of church history will clearly show the discerning student what was original and how the original teachings morphed into what we have today. A study of early church history will show you that there was no such teaching of a sin debt to God. That study will also show you how and where this idea of a sin debt evolved. It's not original. It developed as the gospel was interpreted by different groups of people over time.
I would highly encourage you, and all those who read this to study the early church. You'll be surprised how many doctrines that you hold are not the Biblical doctrines that were taught by Jesus and the apostles.
Butch5
Active
The problem with this analogy is that the judge is a third person. If the crime was committed against the judge, then yes it could be forgiven without compromising the judge's justness.
Ok, the wages of sin is death. If Jesus paid that price, why do Christians die? All Christians sin and all Christians die. The wages of sin is death. They receive their wages. What did Jesus pay for?
You see this is one of the many problems this idea of Penal Atonement has.
If the debt is paid to and the forgiveness comes from the same party, yes, it is a contradiction. A person can use all of the flowery language they'd like, as we often find in commentaries, to try and make it sound good, but in the end, it is a contradiction and therefore not possible.
There are three models of the Atonement that have come down through history. They are the Classic or Ransom model, the Satisfaction model, and the Penal model. The Classic view is the original. It lasted for 1000 years. Towards the end of that time Christians morphed it into the Satisfaction view. The Reformers then morphed that into the Penal model. Essentially, we have, the original model, the Catholic model, and the Protestant model.
Which one do you suppose is the correct one?
bdavidc
Active
I showed you what is correct.
If you're constantly refusing to see the truth of God's Word, it's not because the truth isn’t clear—it’s because you're choosing not to see it. Jesus said in John 8:32, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." But freedom only comes when you're willing to receive the truth, not fight against it.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 says, "Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." If you refuse to see who Jesus really is, it’s not a flaw in the Bible—it’s spiritual blindness, and it’s dangerous.
Hebrews 3:15 warns, "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." There comes a point where continued rejection of God hardens your heart, and that road doesn't end well.
This isn't about winning an argument—it’s about your soul. Proverbs 14:12 says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." You can be sincere and still be wrong. The truth doesn't change just because you don't like it.
God isn’t hiding from you—you’re choosing to close your eyes. But He’s still giving you time to turn. Don't waste it.
Butch5
Active
It's not I that am hiding from the Truth. You mentioned refusing to see. My friend, it was my desire to see the truth that led me back to the original Christian faith and a study of the early church. As I said, a study of church history will reveal much. However, you have summarily dismissed my post with innuendos that I am failing to see the truth. It's been pointed out several times that both paying and forgiving a debt are mutually exclusive and as such a contradiction. Instead of engaging with the contradiction you simply tried to explain it away. Who is refusing to see? You didn't address the problem posed by the doctrine. The wages of sin is death. All Christians sin and all Christians die. Thus, they received their wages. If Jesus paid this, why do all Christians die. You didn't address this. Who is refusing to see? If our doctrine isn't logical and doesn't fit with Scripture, it's wrong. It really is that simple. Instead of trying to force it fit, why not look for another answer?
There are two Jesus made the sacrifice of atonement for original sin which is the first and then you have your own personal sin.So Jesus paid the debt but us continuing to sin puts us back in the hands of death which is the wages of sin.We confess our sins and repent follow the word of God turning back to God when we do - It is by our Lords grace he will also forgive us for those sins they are the ones you need to worry about not original sin that price has been paid in the sacrifice Jesus made.
bdavidc
Active
The Scripture indeed uses a variety of images to describe sin—debt, rebellion, transgression, uncleanness, and more. When it comes to the idea of sin requiring a payment, there are several passages that speak directly to this concept—not always using the word “payment,” but clearly expressing the idea that sin incurs a cost that must be borne or satisfied.
One key passage is Isaiah 53:5–6, which says: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
This passage pictures the suffering servant bearing the consequences of others’ sins—he is "crushed" and "pierced" not for his own wrong, but for the sins of others. The language is substitutionary, and the weight of iniquity is laid on him, which strongly implies a form of satisfaction or payment.
Another key text is Romans 3:23–25: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
Here, Paul uses the language of “redemption” and “propitiation.” “Redemption” (Greek: apolutrōsis) literally refers to a ransom or buying back, and “propitiation” (hilastērion) refers to the satisfaction of wrath—both of which imply that something is required to set things right.
Finally, Hebrews 9:22 states: “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
This is an unmistakable statement that forgiveness is not granted apart from a cost—something has to die, blood has to be shed, pointing ultimately to Christ’s sacrificial death.
So, while Scripture doesn’t always use the word “payment” in every context, the overarching narrative is clear: sin brings guilt and condemnation, and reconciliation with God comes at a price—a price paid fully and finally by Jesus Christ.
bdavidc
Active
I did answer the concern you raised—what you see as a contradiction isn't actually one. The Bible clearly teaches that while the wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23). Christians still experience physical death, not as punishment, but as a consequence of living in a fallen world, while the eternal penalty for sin—separation from God—has been fully paid by Christ. That’s not explaining it away; that’s taking Scripture at its word. As for whether the doctrine is "logical," we need to remember that God's ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8–9). Not everything He does will always make perfect sense to our limited human reasoning. He is infinite in wisdom and holiness—we are not. Demanding that every doctrine fit neatly into human logic puts us in the position of judge over God’s truth, and that’s never our place. Faith trusts God’s Word even when we don’t fully grasp every part of it.
bdavidc
Active
It really is simple—you just don’t want to see it. I’m not forcing anything; anyone who can read can understand it. I’ve given you my answer, so now you’ll answer for yourself, and I’ll answer for myself. I’m just thankful I can read and know the truth.
The verse you’re referencing—Romans 6:23—says, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” It’s important to understand that death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12), and physical death became the universal consequence for humanity. Even after receiving salvation through Christ, believers still live in mortal bodies subject to the effects of a fallen world. However, what Jesus paid for on the cross was not just physical death, but the eternal separation from God that sin demands. When a Christian dies, they are not receiving the full wages of sin; rather, they are entering into eternal life because Christ has borne the eternal penalty on their behalf. Physical death remains, but its sting is removed (1 Corinthians 15:55–57). It becomes a doorway to being with Christ, not a punishment. So, rather than contradicting Scripture, the ongoing reality of physical death for believers fits within the biblical narrative of redemption: the penalty is paid, the relationship is restored, and resurrection awaits.
Butch5
Active
Physical death is eternal separation from God. You're trying to force presuppositions into the text. Paul said the wages of sin is death. He didn't say the wages of sin is death and... The wages of sin is death, Christians die, thus they've received their wages. You said, "When a Christian dies, they are not receiving the full wages of sin." What is it that is additional to death that is a penalty? The Scriptures don't say the wages of sin is death and eternal separation from God. They don't say that because it's obvious that if one is dead, they are separated from God. They are separated from everything.
You said, "Physical death remains, but its sting is removed." Its sting is removed? What is worse than death? Is it safe to assume then that you believe death is not an enemy, as Paul said, but rather a friend that takes one to Christ? Paul called death an enemy.
The penalty is paid, it's paid by the believer. The question is why did Christ die? It's obviously not for the sin that the believe died for.
My friend, can't you see these problems show that the doctrine is not what the Bible teaches. Any doctrine that comes from Scripture will not have a single passage of Scripture that causes an issue. Any doctrine that comes from the Bible will not have any of these logical problems. Any doctrine that comes from the Scriptures will not need to have words redefined and nonsensical phrases to explain it. All of these are signs showing that the doctrine is not from Scripture.
Butch5
Active
yes, it is one. Ignoring that fact doesn't change anything.
If Christians suffer death as a consequence of living in a fallen world (which I totally agree with) and not as punishment for sin, then how did Christ die for sins? Your statements are running afoul of one another.
The problem with this argument is that you relinquish any ability to defend Scripture. If you really believed this then you would not even be debating with us. If anything in Scripture is beyond comprehension, then you can't know that it's correct. So, there would be no point in discussing it. You see, there is a false sense of authority claimed in this argument. You said we have to trust God's word. The problem is that what we are dealing with is an interpretation of God's word. We all read and interpret what we read, just like the translators did. The only way we can say we are trusting God's word is if we understand it correctly. If we misunderstand God's word and make claim, like Penal Atonement, we are not trusting God's word. We are trusting either our's or someone else's misinterpretation of God's word. It's only God's word if we understand it correctly.
Having said that, I would return to my former point. If our doctrine contains logical fallacies, contradictions, or passages of Scripture that contradict it, it's not God's word.
Butch5
Active
Yes. Scripture uses a variety; however, debt isn't one of them.
I totally agree. However, it says nothing about this being to God.
Again, I agree. However, it says nothing about this redemption being from God. Did Christ die to redeem mankind from God?
On a side note, I would submit that propitiation isn't the best definition for hilasterion. It seems it fit the Reformers needs. In virtually every passage of Scripture, with the except of I believe three, it is translated mercy seat.
Again, I totally agree. And, again, there is nothing here about that being towards God.
Again, agreed. And, again, nothing about a payment to God.
Have you ever stopped to consider the implications of this doctrine? To argue for it is to argue that God tortured and killed His own Son. Is that a place a Christian wants to be? Remember, all through Scripture God promised to forgive sin. Where in Scripture does it say that the penalty that must be paid for sin is the life of Christ? It doesn't. Again, that's a Reformation teaching. God has it in His capacity to simply forgive sin. The sin is against Him. He doesn't have to punish it if He chooses not to. In that case, why in all of creation would He torture and kill His only begotten beloved Son. When you stop and think about it, this really is a horrific doctrine that really impugns God's character.