The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Does God bear the sins of men?

Is this literally true? If so, in what sense does God or Christ, according to His divine nature, bear the sins of fallen men on the cross?

This has already been dealt with. I would refer you to these articles which were attached to responses given to you:

1) The Person of Christ & Lutheranism by Charles Hodge

2) Communion of Attributes by Charles Hodge

Thanks, however, I had already read those references and they were not helpful to me in answering the question. This commentary on Westminster may shed some light.


Would you agree that bearing the sins of fallen men on the cross is a mediatorial action? If so, does it not follow that God bears the sins of men?

Obviously, Christ's atonement was a "mediatorial" act. However, it does NOT follow that "GOD", i.e., the divine nature bore the sins of men and suffered the punishment due those for whom Christ died. In those two articles, Charles Hodge showed meticulously where the Lutherans, including Luther himself, Speratus, and others erred in regard to the relationship between the two natures of Christ and which errors are in opposition to the "Creed of Chalcedon" and the overwhelming majority of believers, churches and denominations in Christendom throughout history.

Godly men have learned from the mistakes made by others. The big question is, Will you be one of them? Or, will you choose to sell your soul carte blanche to a denomination under the misconceived notion that it is infallible in all things?

I now leave you to your thoughts and views on this matter with a prayer that the Spirit of God will lead you into all truth according to His inspired, infallible and inerrant Word.

In His grace,

You reject the logical implication of your own confession and confess the Zwinglian alloeosis in opposition to scripture (1 Tim. 2:4-6). I was clearly correct in refusing to sing this hymn in your churches.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

What would you say if I told you that this song is in the Lutheran Hymnal?

And just how are we disagreeing with 1 Tim 2:4-6?

It is also in the WELS hymnal, "Christian Worship". There is nothing doctrinally wrong with this hymn. However, singing it in a Presbyterian church would give a false testimony of a unity of faith that does not exist (unionism).

Pilgrim and other Presbyterians accept the words of this hymn but they deny what the words teach. In their view, a man who has the name "Incarnate God" bore our sins.


As Paul attests, there is only one God and only one Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus. The Mediator who gave Himself a ransom for all is God and man in one indivisible person. If only a man with the name God atoned for our sins, our ransom would be insufficient to cover our offense to the Holy God (Ps. 49: 7, 8). But Christ is our Mediator according to both His divine and human natures and His atonement is of infinite worth (John 1:29).

Wow...so you don't consider Presbyterians your brothers and sisters in Christ?

I have no company (i.e., joint confessional hymn singing in a Pres. church) with my Presbyterian brothers in Christ who teach contrary to Paul's epistle.

For Speratus to do so he would be accused by CLC brethren of unionism. Unionism, Marie, is church fellowship without unity in doctrine and practice. See this article: The Leprosy of Unionism

Basically Marie we must agree with Speratus' theology before we really can be considered true brothers or sisters.

God the Son, a Person of the Trinity, took on flesh, in which He suffered and died and bore our sins. If He could have borne our sins in His deity, there was no necessity for the incarnation. You wrongly confuse the two natures in Christ, ascribing deity to humanity or humanity to deity. We ascribe both humanity and deity to the one Person, Jesus Christ the Son of God, neither separating nor confounding the natures.

All of Christ's mediatorial actions involve the concurrent activities of both natures, each nature contributing that which is proper to itself. Your position is that divine nature contributes nothing to the atonement.

My position is that the divine nature does not take unto itself what is not appropriate to itself. It is not appropriate to the divine nature to suffer and die! Now, the divine nature certainly "contributed" (to put it crudely) to the atonement, because it was by the divine nature that Christ was able (1) to resist sin, (2) to endure God's wrath, and (3) to rise from the dead. Nevertheless, the sufficiency of the atonement is directly a function of the perfection of Christ's humanity: Christ was the perfect representative where Adam had failed.

Well said Kyle!

Please accept my apology for misrepresenting your position. And thanks for answering the original questions, "Is this literally true? If so, in what sense does God or Christ, according to His divine nature, bear the sins of fallen men on the cross?" You seem to recognize a participation of the divine nature in the bearing of men's sins wherein the human nature does not act alone.