The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum When were our sins laid upon Christ

Were our sins laid upon Christ at the Cross, at Conception or at the Covenant?

The Heidelberger teaches

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?

Answer. That He, all the time that He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life,

[A] sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: that so by His passion, as the only
[B] propitiatory sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favor of God, righteousness and eternal life.

The sins of the elect were laid upon Christ "at the Cross". This is redemption accomplished. And the benefits of that redemption are bestowed upon the elect when they believe. This is redemption applied.

IMHO, the best book ever written on this subject is Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, by John Murray. If you don't have it..... GET IT and READ IT! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Thanks I'll make that first on my list. But until then I'll still be wondering why the Lord Jesus suffered in His earthly life when He had no sin?
William

Perhaps the doctrine is a little to scientific (for lack of a better term) for me <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

The answer is quite simply... Christ's life (active) and His death (passive) were substitutionary, i.e., He lived and suffered in behalf of the elect. Actively, He lived a perfect/righteous life which is imputed to believers (elect) and Passively His death atoned (bore the punishment) for believers (elect). Both were absolutely necessary, i.e., sinners are in dire need of a perfect righteousness AND making payment for their sins. These two aspects of the atonement are to address Original Sin; Adam's imputed guilt, needs propitiatory sacrifice and inherited depravity needs a perfect righteousness. Isa 53 is a wonderful place to start to see Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement.

I doubt this is too technical for you to grasp. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

What do you mean suffered in his earthly life? How did he suffer? Are you equating persecution or rejection as suffering?

We must be very careful to attribute our redemption with his suffering. One can easily cross the line into roman catholicism. If Christ suffered without dying, there is no atonement.

our redemption happened at the cross. Thats where He paid the debt. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission...

Joe K

It is a reformed doctrine that [color:"FF0000"]the man Christ Jesus[/color] suffered in His humiliation as the God man.

He suffered in his soul.
Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. John 12:27

He suffered from his Father.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4

He suffered in soul from his Father.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isaiah 53:10

He suffered from Satan.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

He suffered from the Jews.
But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Luke 23:21

Oh how the Lord of glory must suffered in these things!

Doesnt all the verses you mentioned speak of the cross? Or have His sacrafice in mind?

Was there atonement in His suffereing? When he was beaten, were our sins being paid for? I do nto know if this is what you mean. Or was he paying for our sins while he walked the earth? I am confused by your response.

I do not believe Christ would have had to have been beaten any more, hung on the cross longer, or bled more than He did to atone for the sins of His elect.

If I am not understanding you correctly, I apologize.

Joe

Joe,

At the risk of putting words into William's mouth or misconstruing what he actually believes, I think the issue here re: Christ's suffering and the atonement can be quickly and easily resolved when it is understood that the atonement of Christ consists of two aspects: "active" and "passive". The latter is what most seem to dwell on while the former is rarely discussed and by some even denied as being necessary.

Active: This is the life which the Lord Christ lived while on earth. It was 100% perfect as He conformed to the holy law of God without fail. This "active" aspect was and is no less essential to the atonement than the "passive" as it procured the perfect righteousness which God demands of every man, woman and child. And it is this perfect righteousness which is imputed (aka: justification) when a sinner believes, i.e., they are "clothed" with Christ's righteousness. That the Lord Christ suffered while on earth cannot be denied. In fact, just the fact that the God of the universe became man and walked among sinful men caused Him much suffering. In addition to slander, disrespect, hatred, et al could be added temptation, both from the world and the Devil himself who tried desperately to get Him to break the law and/or fore-go the cross.

Passive: As I mentioned above, this is the aspect that most dwell on, i.e., His crucifixion and death. In this aspect of the atonement, the penalty for sin was paid in full thus rescuing the elect from having to stand in judgment themselves. Here too, the Lord Christ suffered in body, mind and soul in behalf of those for whom He came to redeem from the curse of the law.

In both aspects and equally so, the atonement was both vicarious and substitutionary. Or as John Murray so accurately stated it, "the atonement was antecedently absolutely necessary", i.e., there just wasn't any other way that Christ could have atoned for fallen sinners; provide both a perfect righteousness and satisfy the justice of God.

Hopefully, this will help? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Thanks Joe

The language Pilgrim used was good and perhaps the best way to understand the atonement.

I was just trying to understand the Heidelberger having been aquainted with it just a short time now.
I believe the scripture does teach that the man Christ Jesus did suffer while He walked as a man.
To me though it seems as if the Father poured out all of His wrath for our sins on the cross and that is where the atonement was made. Hopefully the Lord will be pleased to enlighten me more.

William <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

I thought you meant the physical suffering was efficacious alone for atonement. That said, I find little if any evidence His active obedience is anything other than fullfiling the LAw perfectly. I do not believe what He did for those 33 years while walking was much different than others in regards to suffering slander. Please do not think I am belittling our Lord, I see the prophets who "suffered' slander et al also.

What is left out more than his active obedience is the obedience His WHOLE life. We tend to look at our Lord only for the 3 years of His minisrty. But we forget He knew NO sin for His whole life. Only God incarnate could accomplish that. He knew NO sin from birth to death. Now that is truly amazing

Joe,

Not to sound like a broken record, but those 33 years of living a perfectly holy life were no less necessary to atone for the sins of the elect than was His death. BOTH were vicarious, i.e., substitutionary. Christ's death alone could not fully atone for what was needed by those for whom He came to save. So again, the atonement was to counter the curse of Original Sin; BOTH the imputed guilt AND the inherited corruption with its consequences. Salvation effects the whole man, both internally and externally. (cf. Jh 17:23; Heb 9:5; 12:23; Gal 3:13; 4:5; Rom 3:25; et al)

In His grace,

I agree pilgrim. I am trying to make a distinction where his WHOLE sinless life was needed. But during those 33 years, the externals of reproach and slander et all had no efficacious value in themselves.

True, in and of themselves, the opposition to Christ had no efficacious value. However, without them His life would not have been efficacious since it was necessary that He, being the second Adam, had to be tested and emerge victorious over all that would have resulted in His sinning and thus not be able to provide that perfect righteousness which is imputed to believers.

My point has always been that the biblical teaching re: atonement is double-faceted; active and passive. Most focus upon the "passive", i.e., His paying the penalty for sin on the cross. Few, unfortunately, understand the "active" aspect of the cross and realize that it was no less necessary to merit the Father's good pleasure and thus contributed equally with the passive aspect to satisfy ALL that is required for a sinner to be saved. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,