Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation

[JonC]

Hi JonC, just going to target this part of the quote (the rest makes a statement that leans more to humanistic philosophy in my view).

The Lord's death is just that, innocent blood/death to solve the guilt equation. Because God desires that all men be saved, and because all men sin, the only means of eradicating our guilt is death. In a temporal context the death of the innocent animal sufficed because that death provided temporal remission, but in regards to Eternal Remission only the Death of Christ can provide remission on an eternal basis:


Hebrews 10:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.



Hebrews 10:10-14 King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


The purpose of animal sacrifice was atonement in a temporal context. The purpose of the Cross was Atonement/Reconciliation and...Redemption. Allin an eternal context. The Lord was not just providing a remedy for the state of separation Adam created, but beyond that to an eternal union with Himself. Have you considered whether men had eternal life prior to Pentecost? Most believe Adam "died spiritually" and that is what is being corrected through Christ. The truth is that Adam's only means of "everlasting life" was the Tree of Life, and that provided only "everlasting" physical life. The Lord makes it very clear how men can have eternal life:


John 3:9-16 King James Version (KJV)

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


If God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, how many were reconciled before Christ?


God bless.

I think the issue is that PSA assumes that redemption is a guilt equation that needs to be solved.

The "solution" to the "sin problem" however, is different. This is what the other positions address. It is not God punishing our sins laid on Jesus so that God can forgive us because God must punish sin else God is unjust. That, as you can probably tell with it written out, is a flawed philosophical statement. Who has to punish an action in order to forgive that action? Scripture states that upon repentance God is just and faithful to forgive. Only PSA raises an objection.

2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Guilt is addressed as those in Christ are "new creatures" and the "old things are passed away" for "new things have come". There is no guilt because we are in Christ through faith, not because God punished sin in order to forgive us our sins.

I'm not addressing the passages you provided because, obviously, I agree. John 3 is a stark contradiction to PSA (when correctly correctly interpreted).

 

[Darrell C]

I think the issue is that PSA assumes that redemption is a guilt equation that needs to be solved.

To an extent we could say that, but, I think we need to back up to the singular problem man has faced since the Garden: separation from God. Man is not separated from God because he sins (with the exception of Adam, lol), but sins because he is separated from God. That is the one problem that has to be remedied.

And it wasn't remedied in the Old Testament. All Old Testament Saints died awaiting reconciliation. Look at your quote again:

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,

So we look at the problem remedied and remedied beyond the problem itself. It would be like, on a much lesser scale, lol, returning your hamburger because it was undercooked and having them replace it with a T-Bone steak, lol.

The "solution" to the "sin problem" however, is different. This is what the other positions address. It is not God punishing our sins laid on Jesus so that God can forgive us because God must punish sin else God is unjust. That, as you can probably tell with it written out, is a flawed philosophical statement. Who has to punish an action in order to forgive that action? Scripture states that upon repentance God is just and faithful to forgive. Only PSA raises an objection.

Keep it simple. Maintain the consistent pattern of atonement throughout Scripture: sin warrants death and someone is going to die for that sin. In the Old Testament God allowed animals to die in the stead of the sinner. That brought about temporal atonement. When Christ died in the stead of the sinner that brought about Eternal Redemption (Hebrews 9:12).

I'm not sure I am familiar with people thinking that it is the sin itself that is being punished.

2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Guilt is addressed as those in Christ are "new creatures" and the "old things are passed away" for "new things have come". There is no guilt because we are in Christ through faith, not because God punished sin in order to forgive us our sins.

I do not take the popular view that the" old things" that pass away are specific to the believer/new creature, but rather that what has passed away are the former economies and that what is "new" is God's administration among men. Do me a favor and read that chapter and tell me if you don't see, in the larger context, that a contrast is being drawn between the differing economies (the Old and the New).

I'm not addressing the passages you provided because, obviously, I agree. John 3 is a stark contradiction to PSA (when correctly correctly interpreted).

Cool beans.

God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi JonC, just going to target this part of the quote (the rest makes a statement that leans more to humanistic philosophy in my view).

The Lord's death is just that, innocent blood/death to solve the guilt equation. Because God desires that all men be saved, and because all men sin, the only means of eradicating our guilt is death. In a temporal context the death of the innocent animal sufficed because that death provided temporal remission, but in regards to Eternal Remission only the Death of Christ can provide remission on an eternal basis:


Hebrews 10:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.



Hebrews 10:10-14 King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


The purpose of animal sacrifice was atonement in a temporal context. The purpose of the Cross was Atonement/Reconciliation and...Redemption. Allin an eternal context. The Lord was not just providing a remedy for the state of separation Adam created, but beyond that to an eternal union with Himself. Have you considered whether men had eternal life prior to Pentecost? Most believe Adam "died spiritually" and that is what is being corrected through Christ. The truth is that Adam's only means of "everlasting life" was the Tree of Life, and that provided only "everlasting" physical life. The Lord makes it very clear how men can have eternal life:


John 3:9-16 King James Version (KJV)

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


If God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, how many were reconciled before Christ?


God bless.

In order to have brought back to God, must have the wrath of God appeased for!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the issue is that PSA assumes that redemption is a guilt equation that needs to be solved.

The "solution" to the "sin problem" however, is different. This is what the other positions address. It is not God punishing our sins laid on Jesus so that God can forgive us because God must punish sin else God is unjust. That, as you can probably tell with it written out, is a flawed philosophical statement. Who has to punish an action in order to forgive that action? Scripture states that upon repentance God is just and faithful to forgive. Only PSA raises an objection.

2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Guilt is addressed as those in Christ are "new creatures" and the "old things are passed away" for "new things have come". There is no guilt because we are in Christ through faith, not because God punished sin in order to forgive us our sins.

I'm not addressing the passages you provided because, obviously, I agree. John 3 is a stark contradiction to PSA (when correctly correctly interpreted).

God has due wrath upon sin, and that must be addressed before we get to forgiving the sinner, as God must have that "fixed" in order to be able to freely forgive then!

 

[MB]

While I can understand how one might come to this conclusion, this would in fact make God HImself...under the Law.

The Law was added because of transgression. Transgression is the result of...separation from God.

Man's singular problem is that he is born separated from God, hence he sins. Reconciliation/Atonement is an eternal answer to a problem that began in the temporal. Adam's relationship with God was physical, he was not, as we are (having been reconciled) in Christ nor was Christ in he. When he sinned he was separated from God in the physical sense. No more would he walk with God in the Garden. The idea that Adam "died spiritually" is erroneous in that it suggests Adam had the very nature that we, as born again believers in Christ have. That idea is denied by Scripture itself, as well as implies that Adam "lost" eternal life. Eternal life cannot be lost.

[\QUOTE]

According to the book of Gensis Adam would have lived for ever if he had eaten from the tree of life. He was put out of the garden to keep him from eating from the tree of life and living forever in sin. Being dead spiritually is actually worse than being inanimate. It means your still alive but separated from God burning in hell. Alive so you know the punishment of your own sin.

Christ did not have to die because the Law demanded it, He died because He chose to die. When we consider Hebrews 9:22 we must balance that with Hebrews 10, understanding that there is a distinction made between what the sacrifices of the Law were for and what they accomplished and what Christ's Sacrifice accomplished. Remember, it was God Himself that established the Law, and this only as a temporary economy. The Promise of God predates the Law and Man, not God, was beholden to the demands of the Law.

God bless.

If the Law had no power or consequence there would be no point in keeping it. God could not remain "Just" if He didn't keep His own Law. God made His own Law. Certainly Christ Died by His own will. He took our punishment for our sins because there was no other way He could save us. He purchased us out of slavery to sin. If He Hadn't died we would all still be Lost

Let me ask you this. What would you have thought of God if God did all the things that is forbidden to us by the Law?
IMHO It would be even harder to follow Him simply because we are to pattern our life on this Earth after Christ His Son and He is Father Son and Holy Spirit at the same time. To be "Just" as God is. He has to obey His own Law.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

To an extent we could say that, but, I think we need to back up to the singular problem man has faced since the Garden: separation from God. Man is not separated from God because he sins (with the exception of Adam, lol), but sins because he is separated from God. That is the one problem that has to be remedied.

And it wasn't remedied in the Old Testament. All Old Testament Saints died awaiting reconciliation. Look at your quote again:

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,

So we look at the problem remedied and remedied beyond the problem itself. It would be like, on a much lesser scale, lol, returning your hamburger because it was undercooked and having them replace it with a T-Bone steak, lol.




Keep it simple. Maintain the consistent pattern of atonement throughout Scripture: sin warrants death and someone is going to die for that sin. In the Old Testament God allowed animals to die in the stead of the sinner. That brought about temporal atonement. When Christ died in the stead of the sinner that brought about Eternal Redemption (Hebrews 9:12).

I'm not sure I am familiar with people thinking that it is the sin itself that is being punished.




I do not take the popular view that the" old things" that pass away are specific to the believer/new creature, but rather that what has passed away are the former economies and that what is "new" is God's administration among men. Do me a favor and read that chapter and tell me if you don't see, in the larger context, that a contrast is being drawn between the differing economies (the Old and the New).



Cool beans.

God bless.

We are spiritual dead in Adam, sin natures, and must be born again to have a spiritual relationship with God again!

 

[percho]

While I can understand how one might come to this conclusion, this would in fact make God HImself...under the Law.

The Law was added because of transgression. Transgression is the result of...separation from God.

Man's singular problem is that he is born separated from God, hence he sins. Reconciliation/Atonement is an eternal answer to a problem that began in the temporal. Adam's relationship with God was physical, he was not, as we are (having been reconciled) in Christ nor was Christ in he. When he sinned he was separated from God in the physical sense. No more would he walk with God in the Garden. The idea that Adam "died spiritually" is erroneous in that it suggests Adam had the very nature that we, as born again believers in Christ have. That idea is denied by Scripture itself, as well as implies that Adam "lost" eternal life. Eternal life cannot be lost.

Christ did not have to die because the Law demanded it, He died because He chose to die. When we consider Hebrews 9:22 we must balance that with Hebrews 10, understanding that there is a distinction made between what the sacrifices of the Law were for and what they accomplished and what Christ's Sacrifice accomplished. Remember, it was God Himself that established the Law, and this only as a temporary economy. The Promise of God predates the Law and Man, not God, was beholden to the demands of the Law.

God bless.

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come [born] of a woman, come [born] under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive



BTW It has been a while seeing you post. Glad to see you back.

 

[Darrell C]

You will need to fix your post if you would like a response.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come [born] of a woman, come [born] under law, that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive

Amen, brother!

So few take the time to notice that Redemption has a point in time when it arrived, and that is when Christ came to redeem men.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In order to have brought back to God, must have the wrath of God appeased for!

Would you mind showing me that in Scripture?

God bless.

 

[percho]

Amen, brother!

So few take the time to notice that Redemption has a point in time when it arrived, and that is when Christ came to redeem men.


God bless.

BTW It has been a while seeing you post. Glad to see you back.

 

[Darrell C]

According to the book of Gensis Adam would have lived for ever if he had eaten from the tree of life. He was put out of the garden to keep him from eating from the tree of life and living forever in sin. Being dead spiritually is actually worse than being inanimate. It means your still alive but separated from God burning in hell. Alive so you know the punishment of your own sin.

First, I would like you to present a Biblical basis for being "spiritually dead," and how it confirms the doctrine you are presenting in this statement.

You are correct that God specifically thrusts man from the Garden that he not live forever, and that is the point, MB: Adam's source of "everlasting life" was the Tree of Life...not Eternal Union with God. Had Adam not sinned he would still be there today, right? But it was a physical existence...not an eternal existence. Adam's relationship with God was physical. He was not in Christ. He was not in God. And we have no indication that God was in Him (though we can probably assume the filling of the Spirit took place then as well as in all following Ages).

He was not born again, because (1) there was no need before he sinned, and (2) because no man was born again until Christ died and arose:

John 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


The Lord dictates the terms for entrance to the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus, famous for his questions (lol), asks...


9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?


With a bit of rebuke, because Nicodemus should have immediately thought of Ezekiel 36-37...


10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?


...answers his question...


13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


So I will ask you a question: if men had eternal life prior to Christ...where did it come from, and where did it go to?


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you mind showing me that in Scripture?

God bless.

That was the Cup that Jesus would accept and take from God the father, Cup of wrath piled up against all sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

First, I would like you to present a Biblical basis for being "spiritually dead," and how it confirms the doctrine you are presenting in this statement.

You are correct that God specifically thrusts man from the Garden that he not live forever, and that is the point, MB: Adam's source of "everlasting life" was the Tree of Life...not Eternal Union with God. Had Adam not sinned he would still be there today, right? But it was a physical existence...not an eternal existence. Adam's relationship with God was physical. He was not in Christ. He was not in God. And we have no indication that God was in Him (though we can probably assume the filling of the Spirit took place then as well as in all following Ages).

He was not born again, because (1) there was no need before he sinned, and (2) because no man was born again until Christ died and arose:

John 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


The Lord dictates the terms for entrance to the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus, famous for his questions (lol), asks...


9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?


With a bit of rebuke, because Nicodemus should have immediately thought of Ezekiel 36-37...


10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?


...answers his question...


13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


So I will ask you a question: if men had eternal life prior to Christ...where did it come from, and where did it go to?


God bless.

Adam would ahve lived forever if he had not sinned, as was both physical and spiritual relationship with His Creator! And OT saints were saved same basis that we are now!

 

[percho]

Amen, brother!

So few take the time to notice that Redemption has a point in time when it arrived, and that is when Christ came to redeem men.


God bless.

How would you compare that, "in time," with Gal 3:23-25 And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we,

What about, faith? Is, faith, also in time? Is that Faith spoken of there in Gal 3, before the coming of and having come, the exact same, faith, as the faith of Abraham? Is that faith having come of Gal 3:25 the exact same faith spoken of those in Heb 11 through which they received a good report, yet did not receive the promise.

 

[JonC]

To an extent we could say that, but, I think we need to back up to the singular problem man has faced since the Garden: separation from God. Man is not separated from God because he sins (with the exception of Adam, lol), but sins because he is separated from God. That is the one problem that has to be remedied.

And it wasn't remedied in the Old Testament. All Old Testament Saints died awaiting reconciliation. Look at your quote again:

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,

So we look at the problem remedied and remedied beyond the problem itself. It would be like, on a much lesser scale, lol, returning your hamburger because it was undercooked and having them replace it with a T-Bone steak, lol.




Keep it simple. Maintain the consistent pattern of atonement throughout Scripture: sin warrants death and someone is going to die for that sin. In the Old Testament God allowed animals to die in the stead of the sinner. That brought about temporal atonement. When Christ died in the stead of the sinner that brought about Eternal Redemption (Hebrews 9:12).

I'm not sure I am familiar with people thinking that it is the sin itself that is being punished.




I do not take the popular view that the" old things" that pass away are specific to the believer/new creature, but rather that what has passed away are the former economies and that what is "new" is God's administration among men. Do me a favor and read that chapter and tell me if you don't see, in the larger context, that a contrast is being drawn between the differing economies (the Old and the New).



Cool beans.

God bless.

I agree with so much here.

The wages of sin is death. Christ shared in our infirmity. Through Him , though we die, we have life.

I do not know why people have to add to Scripture ideas of Christ bearing punishment instead of us. But you are correct. We need to keep it simple.... And I'd add, biblical.

 

[Darrell C]

If the Law had no power or consequence there would be no point in keeping it.

This is what I feel you are lacking in your perspective, MB (and honestly, I am not trying to offend you, just help you see a few basic truths): you are not separating the temporal and the Eternal. The Law was added (implication being it has a beginning in time, and one we can mark on a chart) because of man's sin. The Law is based on the very character of God. In other words...it flows forth from God, so He is not in need of "keeping" something that results from His very Being. Think of the laughter a comedian (and some of my posts) creates, lol: they are a result of the comedian. Think of the solemnity created by a funeral procession.

God could not remain "Just" if He didn't keep His own Law.

Again, the "Law" is based upon the Nature and Being of God. The principles of God's will is what the Law is derived from. "Thou shalt not steal," for example, is based on the fact that God would never steal.

God made His own Law.

Right, and it is impossible that He should violate any principle within His will. So again, the Law did not force God to manifest in the flesh, die in the stead of the sinner, and return to Heaven. Maybe this will help:


John 10:17-19 King James Version (KJV)

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.


The Lord makes the point that His death is entirely voluntary. If He had to die to placate the Law then men did indeed take it away. But that is not the case. The "commandment of the Father" was not...the Law.

Certainly Christ Died by His own will. He took our punishment for our sins because there was no other way He could save us.

Well, lol, I take a little different view. All Old Testament Saints were "saved" prior to being eternally redeemed (which is what we usually speak about when we use the term "saved" in this Age). Secondly, He did not die just to atone for our sins, He died for us so that we could be brought into eternal union with Him. To be one with Him as He is One with the Father (John 14:20).

He purchased us out of slavery to sin. If He Hadn't died we would all still be Lost

Agreed. Now, can you apply what you have just said to the Old Testament Saints? And place Eternal Redemption in it's proper place in Redemptive history?

Let me ask you this. What would you have thought of God if God did all the things that is forbidden to us by the Law?

That is like asking "What would think of God if He created a rock too big for Him to pick up?"

IMHO It would be even harder to follow Him simply because we are to pattern our life on this Earth after Christ His Son and He is Father Son and Holy Spirit at the same time.

Some people use that excuse because He ordered Israel to destroy men, women, and children in the Conquest of Canaan. Scripture gives us the pattern, pet's avoid hypotheticals. There is really no relevance to anything I said in them.

To be "Just" as God is. He has to obey His own Law.

Again, the Law is derived and dictated by God. You are making the Law the sovereign over God. Just give it some thought.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

How would you compare that, "in time," with Gal 3:23-25 And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we,

This is such an important text for us, because it goes hand in hand with understanding that the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ was not revealed to men in past Ages. As well as makes the distinction between "faith" and "faith in Christ" specifically.


Galatians 3:22-28 King James Version (KJV)

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Some might argue the point but I would suggest that here we see specific faith in Christ in view. "The Promise" is given through faith in Christ. Scripture makes it clear that God made numerous promises in the Old Testament which the Old Testament Saints did not receive. One of the most important being the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

So when we get to v.23...


23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.


...we can understand that the "faith" he is speaking about is faith in Jesus Christ through which we receive the promises. Secondly we see that this faith was not available under the law. And since we know there are many of faith in that time, we can again understand the faith in view is specific.


24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

In view is Temporal Justification. Think of the sinner that would not lift up his eyes to Heaven and asked "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." He went away "justified" rather than the Pharisee who said "I thank you Lord that I am not like this man." He was justified, just like Abraham was justified because he believed God would give him a son...but neither were eternally redeemed. Now, if you interpret Romans 4 with Romans 3, rather than the other way around, you'll see Paul is giving a precedent for justification apart from works to support the fact that now God is justifying men on an eternal basis because of...faith in Christ (Romans 3:24-26).

In our verse above, the Law preceded Christ and men were in fact justified by keeping the Law, just not in an eternal context.


25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Now that specific faith in Christ has come...the Law is no longer a means of justification. That does not mean one cannot, in a temporal context, be considered just if he keeps the Law (which is highly advisable, lol, in the sense of keeping the principles of the Law), it just means that in that Age...that's all there was. Relationship with God was through the Law, and now relationship with God is through Jesus Christ, hence we must place our faith in Him. This is what the Lord is teaching when He states "I am the True Vine" in John 15. Israel was "the vine taken out of Egypt, (Psalm 80:8)" and relationship with God is represented in her. Jews trusted, with good reason, that they had relationship to God through their heritage. That is just a Biblical truth. Doesn't mean they were all "saved" because of that but they were all in relationship to Him as a created people. In John 15 the Lord is telling the disciples, basically, "You have trusted in relationship with and to God through being of Israel, now you are to trust in Me as the source of relationship to and with God."

Now Paul gets specific:


26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


He makes the point that we are now being made sons of God through that specific faith in Christ. No man was born of God prior to Pentecost. John makes this point several times in his Gospel, such as in John 1:11-13. He tells us how we are made sons of God:


27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

We have been immersed into Christ. He indwells us, just as He taught in John 14:15-23.


28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


These things could not be said prior to men being baptized into Christ. There was Jew and Greek/Gentile. There were none...in Christ.

What about, faith? Is, faith, also in time? Is that Faith spoken of there in Gal 3, before the coming of and having come, the exact same, faith, as the faith of Abraham? Is that faith having come of Gal 3:25 the exact same faith spoken of those in Heb 11 through which they received a good report, yet did not receive the promise.

Two different and distinct faiths. One is general faith in God, one is specific faith in Christ. General faith in God is what the Writer of Hebrews is referring to here:


Hebrews 6 King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,


The Hebrew Scriptures taught the basic principles of Christ, and the Writer states to his first-century audience (Jews) that they are to leave those and go on unto Perfection/Completion regarding the Doctrine of Christ. General faith is not what God commands in this Age, He commands that men believe on Jesus Christ. General faith is what the Hebrews 11 Saints had. And they did not receive the promises based on that faith, though their eternal destinies were secured through justification. But they still died awaiting Eternal Redemption, which is only through the death of Jesus Christ on their behalf (Hebrews 9:12).

Because there is a point in time when men would be redeemed:


Galatians 4:4-6 King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.


Paul again make that distinction in time, a before and after. Before Christ men were under the Law. Before Christ they were not sons of God. And before Christ they did not receive the Spirit into their hearts (Eternal Indwelling of God).

They hailed Abraham as their father, but we hail God as our Father, and that is what He is, for He has made us sons of God.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

I have a request. I know I responded to this post earlier but something about it bothers me.

You make the statement that I "evacuate" the truth that God is just and the justifier of sinners. And you continue by making a statement that I never made or believed (that God just declares it just).

What I find troubling is not that we disagree but that you make the claim that I "evacuate" the truth from Scripture in order to accept it. That is neither fair nor true. We simply hold different views on how God is just and the justifier of sinners.

My position is that justice requires one of two things, either a sinner is justly condemned for sin or a person is made no longer a sinner. Where we disagree is in judicial philosophy (what "justice" means). We both believe justice is centered on God and He is the standard, but we hold different positions.

For you and I to communicate as believers we have to refrain from such accusations as "you evacuate the passage from it's meaning" or "you deny Scripture" or "that is heresy". All of those types of comments can only serve to obscure, not edify.

I hope you consider what I am saying. I respect your opinion. You are intelligent and well studied. Lacing your posts with such comments is beneath you.

John, we have an arrangement whereby if either of us feels mistreated by the other, we P.M. each other to resolve the matter rather than airing it on open forum. I think it will be beneficial if we observe that arrangement.
However, I am willing for the mods to delete my post #25. I should not have personalized it.

God set forth Christ 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 to declare at this time (that time) that God might be just and the justifier of those who believe in Christ. This is exactly what I am talking about. Satan's power does not consist of an appeal to justice but includes an appeal to God's own righteousness. This is a major point in the Christus Victor position.

I am somewhat familiar with Gustav Aulen's theory of Christus Victor, but you have said that you don't follow him. I am therefore struggling to understand what you do believe. Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness? If so, will you please define it?

As far as your question about the necessity of the cross, consider this:

PSA does not necessitate the cross because the cross itself is not the divine punishment that the wicked will receive. Christ could have died of a heart attack and for a few moments in agony experienced a separation from God thereby paying the penalty for our sins.

I can't believe that you have written this!!
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity and the penalty for sin.
How many times have I copied out this definition over the last five years or so? It must be around twenty! 'He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities.' He had to render to God full satisfaction for the sins of His people. And that satisfaction was not only in His suffering and death; He was obedient unto death. His whole life was a satisfaction of God's justice. 'By one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.'

One important point concerning our Lord's suffering on the cross, which I have pointed out previously, is found in Mark 15:23. 'Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it.' It was an analgesic; it would have lessened His suffering, but He would not take it. He had to suffer the full punishment necessary to make satisfaction for the outraged justice of God. And that included separation from the felt presence of the Father (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

With the Christus Victor view Christ HAD to suffer the wages of sin at the hands of sinners for a crime He did not commit. The cross is absolutely necessary because it is the point where the principles of this world, the powers of this world, fell upon Christ as He unjustly but willingly submitted to the bondage of sin and death to liberate mankind.

Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ? Also, if Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?

The only two theories I know of that does not actually depend on the cross (that Christ suffer such a horrible death) is PSA and non-violent atonement theory ("bloodless atonement").

I am sure that in the light of what I have written above, you will wish to reconsider this statement and withdraw it.

 

[JonC]

John, we have an arrangement whereby if either of us feels mistreated by the other, we P.M. each other to resolve the matter rather than airing it on open forum. I think it will be beneficial if we observe that arrangement.
However, I am willing for the mods to delete my post #25. I should not have personalized it.

I am somewhat familiar with Gustav Aulen's theory of Christus Victor, but you have said that you don't follow him. I am therefore struggling to understand what you do believe. Aulen saw no need for the satisfaction of God's justice. Do you see a difference between God's justice and His righteousness? If so, will you please define it?

I can't believe that you have written this!!
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity and the penalty for sin.
How many times have I copied out this definition over the last five years or so? It must be around twenty! 'He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities.' He had to render to God full satisfaction for the sins of His people. And that satisfaction was not only in His suffering and death; He was obedient unto death. His whole life was a satisfaction of God's justice. 'By one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.'

One important point concerning our Lord's suffering on the cross, which I have pointed out previously, is found in Mark 15:23. 'Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it.' It was an analgesic; it would have lessened His suffering, but He would not take it. He had to suffer the full punishment necessary to make satisfaction for the outraged justice of God. And that included separation from the felt presence of the Father (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

Will you please quote to me the verses you are using to substantiate this statement concerning the powers of this world falling upon Christ? Also, if Christ suffered unjustly, and it 'pleased the LORD to bruise Him' (Isaiah 53:10), then how is God not punishing the innocent?
I am sure that in the light of what I have written above, you will wish to reconsider this statement and withdraw it.

Nothing needs to be deleted. I was not offended but thought others could benefit from the observation.

I am going to the beach for the weekend (it is a holiday here). So I will be on line if the fish are not biting and I have service, but will be limited.

As we both probably know, I not only affim the passages you provide but they are also very important to me and my theology.

I assume you did not answer my question because you were honestly considering it and what it means to the topic at hand. Thank you for that.

Since I will be away, think about it. When you have an adequate answer please post.

Since PSA holds that Christ had to take our punishment in our stead, and the wages of sin is a physical death followed ultimately by a separation from God, why do you believe Christ's physical suffering necessary?