Thoughts on, Propitiation.

[Van]

More absurdity, and more denial of scriptural truth.
1) God did not credit Abraham as righteous, He credited Abraham's faith in God as righteousness.
2) God transfers us spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.
3)When God credits your faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers you spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Once you arrive in Christ, you are saved, propitiated, justified, made alive, made holy, made blameless, made perfect and so forth. You are forgiven, your sin burden has been removed by the circumcision of Christ.
4) Christ is our propitiation, if we are not "in Christ" we are not propitiated, and face the wrath of God for our sins, but if God puts us into Christ, based on crediting our faith as righteousness, we are in His propitiated, forgiven, with our sin burden removed forever.
5) The order is:

a) we hear, understand and learn from God.
b) God credits our faith as righteousness
c) God transfers us spiritually into Christ
d) We undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, justified, made holy and blameless and perfect.
e) We are then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, completing our entry into the Kingdom of His Son.​

This sequence is as presented in scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

More absurdity, and more denial of scriptural truth.

That is the best summation of what you are going to say from the end of that sentence forward. This kind of trash is not even worth commenting on.

 

[Van]

Yet another Calvinist post, devoid of content, containing yet another insult.

1) God did not credit Abraham as righteous, He credited Abraham's faith in God as righteousness.
2) God transfers us spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.
3) When God credits your faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers you spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Once you arrive in Christ, you are saved, propitiated, justified, made alive, made holy, made blameless, made perfect and so forth. You are forgiven, your sin burden has been removed by the circumcision of Christ.
4) Christ is our propitiation, if we are not "in Christ" we are not propitiated, and face the wrath of God for our sins, but if God puts us into Christ, based on crediting our faith as righteousness, we are propitiated, forgiven, with our sin burden removed forever.
5) The order is:

a) we hear, understand and learn from God.
b) God credits our faith as righteousness
c) God transfers us spiritually into Christ
d) We undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, justified, made holy and blameless and perfect.
e) We are then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, completing our entry into the Kingdom of His Son.​

This sequence is as presented in scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another Calvinist post, devoid of content, containing yet another insult.

1) God did not credit Abraham as righteous, He credited Abraham's faith in God as righteousness.
2) God transfers us spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.
3) When God credits your faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers you spiritually from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. Once you arrive in Christ, you are saved, propitiated, justified, made alive, made holy, made blameless, made perfect and so forth. You are forgiven, your sin burden has been removed by the circumcision of Christ.
4) Christ is our propitiation, if we are not "in Christ" we are not propitiated, and face the wrath of God for our sins, but if God puts us into Christ, based on crediting our faith as righteousness, we are propitiated, forgiven, with our sin burden removed forever.
5) The order is:

a) we hear, understand and learn from God.
b) God credits our faith as righteousness
c) God transfers us spiritually into Christ
d) We undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, justified, made holy and blameless and perfect.
e) We are then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, completing our entry into the Kingdom of His Son.​

This sequence is as presented in scripture.

Does faith make us rightious, or is it the shed blood of Christ?

 

[The Biblicist]

Does faith make us rightious, or is it the shed blood of Christ?

It is not "faith" that needs imputed righteousness, but it is the sinner who is under the wrath of God (Jn. 3:36) and needs justification.

Transferring from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of righteousness is an act of God called new birth, because without it a person cannot ENTER the kingdom OF HEAVEN or SEE the kingdom OF HEAVEN - Jn. 3:3-5

The reason the Scriptures say that Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness is because of its OBJECT as Paul makes very clear the object of justifiying faith is the redemptive Person and works of Christ "FOR US" in Romans 4:23-25. Hence, it is Abraham himself that is COUNTED as righteous because it is Abraham himself that was formerly "ungodly" (not his faith) who is now JUSTIFIED (sins remitted, righteousness imputed) due to his faith IN Christ.

However, one must first be CREATED IN CHRIST (Eph. 2:10) before they can partake of the benefits which are IN Christ and the words "created in Christ" refers to the creative work of God (Eph. 2:10a) which is "not of works" (Eph. 2:9) but is the "gift of God" (2:8) not of ourselves (2:8) thus by "grace are ye saved" which has been previously defined in Ephesians 2:5 as the QUICKENING work of God or regeneration. WE CANNOT CREATE ANYTHING and it takes a work of CREATION to place a sinner "IN CHRIST."

Certainly Christ is our propitiation BECAUSE he performed the work of propitiation for us, which required SATISFYING both the penalty and the righteous demands of the Law IN OUR BEHALF.

Christ himself condemns this fallacious order set forth by van:

Jn. 3:3,5 is sufficient by itself to expose Van's imaginary views as errors as Christ explicitly states one must be born again BEFORE they can "see" or "enter" the kingdom OF HEAVEN, however Van places seeing and entering (a,b,c) before the new birth (d).

 

[Van]

Does faith make us righteous, or is it the shed blood of Christ?

1) If our faith, worthless as it is, is credited as righteousness by God, then God transfers us into Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit.
2) Once we arrive in Christ, we are justified, our sin burden is removed by the circumcision of Christ.
3) Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.

Looking at it we see that Christ shed His blood to become our propitiation or means of salvation, and once we arrive spiritually in Christ, we are individually propitiated, justified, made holy, and so forth.

The order is:

a) we hear, understand and learn from God.
b) God credits our faith as righteousness
c) God transfers us spiritually into Christ
d) We undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, justified, made holy and blameless and perfect.
e) We are then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, completing our entry into the Kingdom of His Son.​

This sequence is as presented in scripture.

 

[Rippon]

Looking at it we see that Christ shed His blood to become our propitiation or means of salvation,

As it has been pointed out to you numerous times --propit iation does not = means of salvation.

and once we arrive spiritually in Christ, we are individually propitiated,

You are a ball of confusion. A person is not propitiated --their sins are. And in prior posts, you have expressed the view that the sins of everyone were propitiated. Now you are saying that only some people have their sins propitiated? Why did you leave out the sins of the ones being propitiated?

 

[Van]

I see the Calvinist again denies Christ is the means of our salvation. This equation has been presented many times, propitiation = Christ = means of salvation.

Pay no attention to Mr. Rippon's claims which misrepresent the views of others, no quote will be forthcoming.

 

[The Biblicist]

I see the Calvinist again denies Christ is the means of our salvation. This equation has been presented many times, propitiation = Christ = means of salvation.

Pay no attention to Mr. Rippon's claims which misrepresent the views of others, no quote will be forthcoming.

I see the Arminian again is rejecting God's Word.

1. God's Word says "they shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people FROM THEIR SINS" - that is what propitiation does.

2. God's Word says "Except a man be born again he cannot see.....cannot enter the kingdom of HEAVEN" - but the Arminian calls Christ a liar and claims a man can see and enter the kingdom of heaven before he is born again.

3. God's Word before and after carefully defines the words ""his faith is counted for righteousness" to mean that it is the OBJECT of that faith, or "faith IN his blood" as the means for propitiation that secures imputation of righteousness and it is the PERSON exercising that faith who is imputed that righteousness. Hence, the words "HIS FAITH" is inclusive of the PERSON exercising the faith and the OBJECT of that faith, but the Arminian denies both and claims that it is merely abstract faith alone that is imputed righteousness. However, God's Word before and after Romans 4:5-6 carefully and clearly demands imputation includies both the PERSON exercising faith and the KIND of faith being exercised:

Rom. 4:Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith IN his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth IN Jesus.

Can the Arminian READ? It is not merely the PERSON of Christ that is the propitiation, and it is not merely abstract faith that is imputed righteusnes but propitiation is obtained only by a carefully defined faith which has a carefully defined object "FAITH IN HIS BLOOD" - Rom. 3:25 - it is the BLOOD that provides propitiation because a living Christ provides NOTHING to propitiate God's wrath against sin.


Rom. 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 ¶ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was iimputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Can the Arminian READ? "TO HIM...TO HIM...TO WHOM" - righteousness is imputed TO A PERSON not merely to faith.

Therefore, it is not merely abstract faith which is counted for righteousness but is inclusive of the PERSON exercising a previously defined kind of faith that has for its object the Person and work of Jesus Christ, especially the "blood" of Christ as the promised provision to obtain "propitiation" or satisfication for their justification (imputed righteousness and remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8).

The Arminian has no clue as to what justification constitutes because he does not understand Romans 4:6-8 or Romans 4:23-5:1. Justification EQUALS our sins imputed to Christ (Rom. 4:7-8) and Christ's righteousness imputed to us (Rom. 4:5-6) as Paul sums up in 2 Cor. 5:21, all of which is based upon the subtitutionary work of propitiation described in Romans 3:24-25 and Romans 4:24-25. But the Arminian has no clue at all to these carefully spelled out ingredients of justification.

The Arminian will again just act like a parrot and repeat his unbiblical nonsense.

 

[Van]

No infraction will be forthcoming for this insult by a Calvinist: " but the Arminian calls Christ a liar and claims a man can see and enter the kingdom of heaven before he is born again.

Consider the word enter, as something that occurred in the past, and therefore unless a person has been born anew, they cannot view entering as a past event. Thus being born anew is part and parcel of entering. Until a person is born anew and sealed with the Holy Spirit they cannot be said to have entered the kingdom of heaven. And in a similar fashion, one cannot be said to be perceiving the kingdom as a past event until entry has been completed.

Next, the Calvinist makes my case citing Romans 3:24, which says we are justified through redemption in Christ. Thus, before being justified, we are redeemed in Christ.

And how to we obtain entry into Christ, why through faith in the blood of Christ.

This equation has been presented many times, propitiation = Christ = means of salvation. If God puts us in Christ, we are saved, propitiated, made alive, made holy and so forth. If we have not been put in Christ, we face the wrath of God and are in need of propitiation that is only in Christ Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

Consider the word enter, as something that occurred in the past,

The New birth is being set forth as the CONDITION in order for entry to occur. Hence, entry is FUTURE consequence of a PAST new birth in regard to cause and effect. This is so obvious, it is amazing it has to be defended.

 

[Bro. James]

Propitiation: Jesus taking our guilt and punishment on Himself, the Just for the unjust. We are all guilty and sentenced to death. Yet Jesus paid it all. By His stripes we are healed and reconciled to God through Jesus innocent blood shed at Calvary. It is finished.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Van]

The New birth is being set forth as the CONDITION in order for entry to occur. Hence, entry is FUTURE consequence of a PAST new birth in regard to cause and effect. This is so obvious, it is amazing it has to be defended.

This from someone who claims expertize in Koine Greek! Both the words translated see and enter are AOR which refers to something that has been accomplished, a done deal.

Consider the word enter, as something that occurred in the past, and therefore unless a person has been born anew, they cannot view entering as a past event. Thus being born anew is part and parcel of entering. Until a person is born anew and sealed with the Holy Spirit they cannot be said to have entered the kingdom of heaven. And in a similar fashion, one cannot be said to be perceiving the kingdom as a past event until entry has been completed.

 

[The Biblicist]

This from someone who claims expertize in Koine Greek! Both the words translated see and enter are AOR which refers to something that has been accomplished, a done deal.

Obviously you don't know Greek or you would not made such a statement above about the aorist tense. They are both found in the Aorist tense because the term "born" is in the Aorist tense showing IDENTICAL ACTION. New birth is entrance into the kingdom of God but the logical order is that birth precedes entrance as there is no entrance without new birth.

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to anyone who redefines what the Aorist tense means. Look up the definition on the net.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pay no attention to anyone who redefines what the Aorist tense means. Look up the definition on the net.

He was giving to you the answer as found in a greek grammer though!

 

[Van]

Yet another assertion without even providing a citation.

Aorist -noun, a tense of the verb in classical Greek and in certain other inflected languages, indicating past action without reference to whether the action involved was momentary or continuous

Thus, and repeating now, one must be born anew in order to consider entry a done deal.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another assertion without even providing a citation.

Aorist -noun, a tense of the verb in classical Greek and in certain other inflected languages, indicating past action without reference to whether the action involved was momentary or continuous

Thus, and repeating now, one must be born anew in order to consider entry a done deal.

Past done event with current ongoing results, so the new birth comes to us at a certain point of time, action/effect is ongoing, so we must have the new heart to precede the new birth....

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another assertion without even providing a citation.

Aorist -noun, a tense of the verb in classical Greek and in certain other inflected languages, indicating past action without reference to whether the action involved was momentary or continuous

Thus, and repeating now, one must be born anew in order to consider entry a done deal.

You are simply ignorant of Greek grammar. Although an isolated non-contextual understanding of the Aorist is exactly what you have defined it, your problem is that this aorist tense verb is not isolated but found in a context with other nouns that have the SAME tense showing IDENTIFICAL action with each other.

Hence, "see" and "enter" are found in the Aorist tense as much as "born" is found in the Aorist tense. THEY ARE ALL AORIST TENSE.

However, "born" is given as the contextual CAUSE to "see" and "enter" showing it must be at least the logical cause that PRECEDES either the ability to "see" or "enter." That grammatical fact blows your interpretation out of the water as you claim "enter" and "see" occurs PRIOR to being "born" whereas Jesus places them as the grammatical CONSEQUENCE of being "born."

The truth is they are all Aorist tense verbs showing IDENTICAL ACTION as far as time but as far as logical cause and effect, it does not take a grammarian to easily see that being "born" is set forth by Jesus as the CAUSE and to see and enter is the CONSEQUENCE. It merely takes common sense and ability to read the English, something you don't possess because you are so obsessed with your hated of the truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

Past done event with current ongoing results, so the new birth comes to us at a certain point of time, action/effect is ongoing, so we must have the new heart to precede the new birth....

You are confusing the Aorist with the Perfect tense. It is the perfect tense that is a completed action in the past with continuing results. The simple indicative Aorist is a completed action at some point in the past.

As usual, Van does not know what he is talking about. The terms "born" in verses John 3:3,5 are found in the Aorist tense and demand that the new birth was a completed point of action just as "see" and "enter" represent Aorist tense verbs that demand a completed point of action in the past.

Both the English translation and the Greek easily show that "born" is placed in the sentence as the CAUSE for seeing and entering the Kingdom of heaven. For example, Jesus did not say:

"Except a man see and enter the kingdom of heaven he cannot be born again"

But that is exactly what Van's ridiculous interpretation demands when he says that "enter" and "see" refer PREVIOUSLY to being "born". His problem is that he can't read and understand English much less interpret Greek grammar properly.

What Jesus said was "except a man be born again, he CANNOT see/enter the kingdom of heaven" (jn. 3:3,5 combined). An elementary understanding the English is all that is necessary to see that Van's interpretation is complete nonsense.