Propitiation

And you are right. And all this is already well agreed.

HOWEVER,

What is NOT Scriptural is that salvation is by the blood.

Salvation is by belief.

That is why the. Blood can truly be shed for ALL for the forgiveness of sin(s). Yet, salvation be appointed to those given belief (faith).

 

Life is in the blood, not in the faith!

 

How about God given faith in the blood of Jesus which in on the altar in heaven where Jesus ever lives to make intercession? See Ephesians 2:8-10. Innocent blood is the payment for sin--past present and future. God even gives the faith to believe. We have absolutely no merit of our own. Our free-will is enslaved to our sin nature. We know not how to make the right choice. This is what Grace is all about.

This is not about having a chance at salvation. Jesus paid it all.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Sorry, that is not proof that shed blood is salvation, or presents salvation is by the blood.

Btw, why do you think there was so little bloodletting on the cross?

 

There would have been a massive amount of it...

 

Actually not

Perhaps this from the Journal of the American Medical Association will help you to understand.

This is not theology, but medical authorities examining the Roman method of trial and crucifixion.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf


Isaiah 53 statement pertains more to the tortuous trial than the cross, but most folks look upon the trial as minor compared to the cross. Just the opposite, by the events at the cross, blood was already shed, death was waiting on permission.

 

Isaiah 53 is describing how God afflicted jesus Himself while upon the Cross!

 

Not true.

Just the opposite.

Isaiah 53 is stating the RESULTS of the affliction.

That Humankind ascribed the affliction as from God.

“BUT”

It is a short word used to indicate that which is presented next is contrary to that which came before.

All this was PLEASING to God. Not that which was God displaying wrath.

The tortuous trial was the blood letting.

The world judge pronouncement, “I find no fault in Him!” Agreed with the statement before the throne as the Lamb took the Scroll in Revelation 5.

 

Bruised and crushed is not being afflicted?

 

God can inflict His divine wrath upon Jesus, and be pleased with the end result of doing that, correct?

 

It was the pleasure and good will of God to do that unto Him....

 

Can God inflict Divine wrath upon Himself?

 

The priest and Levites acted as mediators between God and Israel and as a type of Christ whose blood is being applied to Israel a type of the elect.
The mixed multitude came out of Egypt which is a type of of the world and therefore The mixed multitude cannot be a type of the world but are a type of GENTILE elect which come from all tribes and nations.

 

Jon’s Theory is fundamentally a repudiation of very essence of the biblical gospel. For example, the very principle behind his theory repudiates The Adamic representation in Romans 5:12-20. Paul says that it was the one offense by one man that all men were condemned, become dead, And made sinners.According to the principle that governs John’s theory the text would have to read by MANY offenses many were made sinners, condemned, be dead. Since his theory denies the just can’t be condemned for the unjust therefore he cannot admit that one man’s offense justafied condemnation, death, made sinners of all men who were not present individually and personally at the time offense was committed.
However, the second Adam operates on the very principal johns view rejects. Just as we are made to be sinners by imputation as well as importation so also according to the second Adam we are made righteous by imputation as well as impartation.
Moreover, according to Mosaic law The just can be legally condemned for the actions of the unjust. For example, the owner of an animal can be held accountable for the actions of the animal. So also, in American jurisprudence the actions of an employee can be charged to the owner of a business. In both cases the just is lawfully held accountable for the actions of the Unjust in court.

 

Sometimes the presentation of "type" isn't consistent with what the "type" is supposed to represent.

Here is an example:

You state, "The priest and Levites acted as mediators between God and Israel and as a type of Christ whose blood is being applied to Israel a type of the elect"

This is good at a certain level, but then you have to ask are all the priests believers? Are all those in Israel believers? Were all strangers, sojourners, slaves, ... believers?

If the "mixed multitude... a type of gentile elect..." then were they all believers?

The obvious answer is no.

Obviously not, or the rulers and people in Christ's day would all be part of the elect redeemed. The type you present does not fully carry the weight of the picture parameters.

However, when considering that the blood being applied was for BOTH unbelievers and believers then the consistency of the type stretches to the frame on all sides.

Therefore, even the type, that which you would show as living pictures of only the elect - the believers - is more accurately shown as all inclusive irregardless of belief.

 

There is no account of such a statement in this thread.

The closest statement might be:

"“It is finished” was not speaking of God’s supposed work of punishing Jesus for each sin people committed. It is speaking of Christ’s work – His obedience even unto death – purchasing humanity from sin and death and freeing from those bonds those who are “in Him”. “It is finished” refers to His work from cradle to grave. It is done and Christ is the Last Adam through Whom we may be reconciled to God. But Christ’s death itself and alone does not effect this reconciliation. In Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting trespasses against people. This ministry of reconciliation continues." (JonC quote from post #34)​

Perhaps you are responding to a statement from another thread?

If one is to oppose the position of another, is it not proper to encapsulate with that opposition at least something of a quote by the person one opposes, or at least a reference to where that information can be found?