bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes. Scripture uses a variety; however, debt isn't one of them.

bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. However, it says nothing about this being to God.

bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, I totally agree. And, again, there is nothing here about that being towards God.

bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Butch5 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you for openly admitting you’re part of a group of false teachers on a mission against God’s Word by saying, “debating with us.”

Your response reveals a fundamental confusion between the authority of God's Word and the fallibility of human understanding. Yes, interpretation is involved when we read Scripture—but that doesn’t make God’s Word subject to our reason. The moment we insist that a doctrine must align with our logic before we believe it, we’ve placed human intellect above divine revelation. That is not reverence for Scripture; it is idolatry of the mind. Scripture is clear: “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him” (1 Corinthians 2:14). You accuse those who accept doctrines like penal substitution of trusting in misinterpretations, but the standard you are using is your own reasoning, not the Word rightly handled. You say that if something doesn’t make sense to you, it can’t be God’s truth. That is delusional. God has never made human understanding the measure of His truth. His Word defines truth (John 17:17), and faithful doctrine is not measured by what seems logical to us, but by what God has actually said. When Scripture teaches something plainly—no matter how offensive or paradoxical it may seem to the natural mind—we submit to it in faith, not because we’ve mastered it, but because we trust the One who spoke it.

Jesus Himself warned of this kind of spiritual arrogance when He said, “Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14), and again, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?” (Luke 6:39). If you reject God's truth because it doesn't fit your system, you are no different from the blind guides Christ rebuked. You're not correcting error—you’re perpetuating it.

I’ve done my part in showing you the truth from God’s Word with patience and sincerity. But it’s clear at this point that you’re not interested in understanding—you’re more interested in arguing. Scripture warns us not to engage endlessly with those who refuse correction (Titus 3:10–11). Jesus said to shake the dust off our feet when truth is rejected (Matthew 10:14), and Paul told Timothy to avoid foolish and ignorant disputes that only breed strife (2 Timothy 2:23). I care about your soul, but I will not continue feeding division or allowing false doctrine to be normalized through endless debate. I pray God opens your eyes before it’s too late.”

I have not relinquished anything—least of all the defense of Scripture. Don’t confuse your rejection of truth with some imagined victory. I am not debating you, nor seeking your approval; I am proclaiming the Word of God and warning you of His coming wrath against those who twist it. Your arrogant demand that God’s truth conform to your reasoning only proves that you do not know Him. Scripture does not need to be filtered through your logic to be true—it stands eternal and unshaken whether you accept it or not. Your resistance is not against me but against the Lord Himself, and that is a fearful place to stand. If you continue down this path, spreading false doctrine and setting yourself up as judge over God’s Word, you will face the judgment reserved for false teachers. Repent while you still can. God is not mocked. His truth will not bow to your pride.

bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe the confusion here comes from the rejection of God having the sovereign right to Forgive sin - as Jesus taught.

Calvin, being a lawyer, saw everything as a legal transaction. Rather like the person who, having only a hammer, sees everything as a nail.

Show me one teaching JUST ONE, where Jesus said that "the deeper moral and legal implications of our guilt before a holy God" demands that His (Jesus') blood needs to be offered to God as a payment. Having had this conversation hundreds of times, I already know in my heart the only verse(s) you can point to, so I would first ask that you read the Greek text, and then translate it accurately without depending upon your tradition's theology.

bdavidc said:

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."

Click to expand...

I think I see the problem -

bdavidc said:

Imagine...

Click to expand...

Imagination causes real heresies. Dangerous heresies. Beliefs that kill. (Just ask Servetus.) Such imagination depends upon human ideas of Righteousness that contradict the teachings of Jesus.

bdavidc said:

The judge, being just, cannot simply overlook your crime and say, "You're forgiven, go free." That would be unjust.

Click to expand...

According to human ideas of Justice and Righteousness. Haven't you ever considered (of course you have.... but perhaps not clearly... I don't know which is why I ask...)

- John 16:8 KJV

The ultimate conclusion of your premise here is that there are venial and mortal sins. A sin that can be forgiven (venial) and a sin that must be paid for (mortal). And yes, I know that this is a very Catholic view, but from what I have read of your posts so far (time is fleeting), I see a significant Calvinistic bent with some odd Catholic ideas thrown in.... My apologies if I'm wrong.

The thing is, even your own testimony states (and I quote) "I knelt by my bed and asked the Lord to forgive me." Why didn't you kneel by your bed and ask that God accept the blood of Jesus to pay for your sins?

Why wasn't the Lord God's forgiveness enough? (Or was it?)

bdavidc said:

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.

Click to expand...

But that wasn't what happened at your bedside.

What happened is that you repented and asked forgiveness - the very gospel that Jesus taught.

Before we continue, though, I should point out that I am an Acts 2:38 Christian. (Period.)

- Acts 2:37-38 KJV

But sometime between your beside and now, something changed, no? (You learned theology!??) You had followed the teachings of Jesus, crying out to the Father for forgiveness, (at your bedside) and then somehow lost the pure word (LOGOS - teaching) of the Messiah. PLEASE, this is not an accusation, this is not a debate, because from your testimony I know you to be my brother in Christ. But at what point did you start to teach a different Gospel than that which Jesus taught?

bdavidc said:

But now imagine someone steps into the courtroom and offers to pay the fine or take the punishment on your behalf.

Click to expand...

I understand the idea, but such an imaging cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus. Rather....

- Luke 7:40-42 KJV

Nobody stepped in to pay the creditor anything. The creditor frankly forgave them both. Period. Anything else changes the gospel message here.

- Matthew 18:23-27 KJV

Nobody stepped in to pay off the debt to the King. The King loosed him from the obligation, and forgave the debt. Anything else changes the gospel message here.

At times I tell a parable about a kingdom where a king takes account of his servants, and one was brought unto him who could not pay. But there was an ambassador from a foreign country at court. A very, very strange country that did not use gold, but kraydit kards of playstiq, and the one who owed could declare baankaruupcy and just walk away from all he owed, where the one who loaned money was responsible, rather than the one who borrowed. (HOW BIZARRE.) This ambassador, knowing the King would command his servant to be sold into slavery (a thing the ambassador considered barbaric) stepped in JUST as the King would have been moved with compassion to forgive the debt and declared that he, the ambassador would pay the debt. And the King's will was thwarted.

And Christians go YES... THAT'S JESUS. But that's NOT what Jesus taught. It's a Jesus that cannot be found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, or even the Gospel named John for that matter. It's a fiction made up about Jesus, where the Father King is paid. So how is it even possible for the King to Forgive a Debt that was paid?

But what did Jesus teach? He taught what you actually did at your bedside.

- Matthew 6:12 KJV

- Luke 11:4 KJV

Who are these people who declare that the Sovereign God cannot forgive sins as He so wills? Who are these people who would reject the very Gospel of Jesus who taught us (nay, commanded us) to pray to the Father, "forgive us our sins"? As if the command of Jesus was not enough? That the Gospel of Jesus was insufficient?

- Matthew 28:19-20 KJV

- Mark 1:14-15 KJV

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached. Why should we believe anything else?

In the name of the Lord,
Rhema

bdavidc said:

The Bible tells us “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23),

Click to expand...

Paul did. Where did Jesus? (And I'm asking a most serious question.)

bdavidc said:

and “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22).

Click to expand...

Says the author of Hebrews. But John, the cousin of Jesus, taught differently.

- Mark 1:4 KJV

John frankly preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. No animals. No blood. Don't add to the gospels.

And with regards to this "shedding of blood" -

- Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV

- Matthew 11:27-30 KJV

Why would any sane person adopt a religion that offers up human blood sacrifices to the gods? (Okay, just one God, and one sacrifice, but it still declares Jesus to be a human blood sacrifice.)

Peace in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Rhema

bdavidc said:

So yes, the debt was paid, and therefore we can be truly forgiven.

Click to expand...

This rather reminds me of Nancy Pelosi saying, "We have to pass the bill into law so we can see what it says."

???