Featured My (JonC) view of the Atonement

God the father executed his wrath and divine judgement upon Jesus on that Cross, for our sakes, as he was imputed our sins!

 

Pauline Justification, as Jesus was imputed our sins in order that the father could impute to us Jesus righteousness!

 

You have Scripture for this thinking?

if not it is mere opinion and is meaningless as Paul would say concerning that not backed by Scriptures.

 

Scripture?

Watching, on TV, Old Faithful spewing hot air and steam did nothing but at least caught my attention.

Scriptures also catch my attention, and also bring edification.

Please back you opinion with Scripture, that we be edified.

 

agedman, I have provided you with scripture. It has not, seemingly, caught your attention. I wish you would stop making such a statement when you don't seem to actually care what scripture is provided.

 

Do you hold to the imputed righteousness of Christ to us when saved?

 

was God forsaking Jesus while he bore our sins or not?

 

Actually I do care what Scripture is provided, for if I didn't I would just accept what is pleasing to everyone else instead of listening and seeing what is actually stated.

That is why I continually ask for Scriptures if someone is posting opinion with no foundational reference.

You and I often agree, just in this one area is there much stress. Therefore, the we need to keep the Scriptures as primary focus and come to agreement upon them as much as possible.
For example: You are facing the presentation of Isaiah 53 differently then me. As we have worked through this, we have uncovered that crush means to bruise, not to pour out wrath, but to humiliate and to bring to shame for we both agree that the mockery and torturous interrogations were certainly humiliating, especially for one who had "passed through there midst" on multiple occasions prior to the garden arrest.

Where we agree is that this is all the preplanning of God. And that nothing occurred in which was not totally agreeable to the Trinity and unity of the Godhead.

I find fascinating how the Lord is bringing understanding as we focus upon His Scripture. We may never resolve this issue totally, but I and you both trust the Scripture to guide us as we continue. That is good.

 

That depends.
Unless you produce Scripture support, then what definition do you use for impute?

It has multiple definitions and applications. It is not a one size fits all word without properly expressing which variable meaning you intend.

So, again, Scriptures.

 

Do you even believe in Pauline Justification then?

 

So you deny Pauline justification?

 

I will take "forsaking" as NOT abandon, but to leave alone, to neglect, to loose from (protection, support, sustenance, ...) .

So, certainly, I do hold that Christ's statement on the Cross as factual, prophesied, and according to bringing fulfillment of Scriptures.

 

agedman, I presented Moses striking the rock in Exodus 17 and Paul's clear connection in 1 Corinthians 10,showing Jesus is the Rock that was struck. I then connected it to Isaiah 53. The whole of scripture connects Jesus as our substitutionary atonement. This is scripture interpreting scripture for you so you can see the connection.
I am fine with us disagreeing, but don't keep saying that scripture is not being shown to you. It has been shown. Moreso, many passages in Hebrews have also been used to connect these thoughts. It is not that scripture hasn't been presented. It is clearly that you will not agree to these scriptures making a point on which you choose to disagree. All I ask is that you be honest and admit that scripture has been provided, not that you have to agree with the prooftexts and how they are compiled.

 

Yes and no.

Yes, that Christ, according to the finished work of atonement (as shown in Hebrews) brought reconciliation between God and humankind, for Paul preached the message of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:

18All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s trespasses against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
20Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God. 21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
​

No, I do NOT accept the modern thinking that because God brought us to reconciliation that we are now "liberated and reconciled" with all people.

I do not accept that just because God reconciled us, that we are justified in being reconciled with just anyone nor does it even suggest as some teach that because of Grace, then just everyone is reconciled to God.

The Gospel Coalition has an extensive writing on this topic in which shows that folks run from the justification in the writings of Paul are central to others putting justification as a peripheral matter.

I do not particularly like the word "justification" as it has been used as a dividing wand, but do like the word reconciliation, for that is what Paul stated that he preached, and is supported by Scriptures in which Christ stated that He was come not to judge the world but to bring Life.

 

Forsaken as in experiencing the absence of the presence of God, as all lost sinners shall

 

very heart of Pauline Justification is that Jesus was imputed our sins, and we receive imputed His very righteousness, do you agree?

 

Yes, you did, and I think I responded that Moses as a type of Christ struck both rocks. The rock represented that access to life giving water is by Christ. Moses did not represent Christ as a type in all he did or at all times. The type is a mere forgery of the archetype.

Moses violated the command of God (something Christ would never do) by striking the second rock rather then by speaking to it. For this Moses suffered the consequences and was eventually replaced. The picture of us boldly coming to the throne of Grace in prayer and supplications was marred by Moses.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 10, Paul doesn't distinguish between the two rocks, so it is assumed by some that it was the first and by others that it was the second depending on the emphasis that person wants to fit their agenda (imo). However, that has little to do with the actual reason Paul included some of the events of the Exodus.

Again,the application is not about Christ being the rock, nor were these used by Paul concerning atonement and sacrifice.

Paul states in the verses:

6These things took place as examples to keep us from craving evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written: “The people sat down to eat and to drink, and got up to indulge in revelry.”a 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test Christ, as some of them did, and were killed by snakes. 10And do not complain, as some of them did, and were killed by the destroying angel.

11Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12So the one who thinks he is standing firm should be careful not to fall. 13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide an escape, so that you can stand up under it.
​

Should one fail to bring understanding to the passages you cited, they may agree with your thinking.

We are to (as Paul said in the next verse) "flee from idolatry." It is then Paul encourages unity in thinking just as there is unity in sharing one cup and one loaf of bread (though most churches don't).

 

Again, you use the word "impute" which has many variable definitions and you present "justification," also.

I responded to both.

Until you can furnish me what exactly you mean by "impute" I cannot answer.

I assumed your definition of justification and shared my thoughts and Scriptures.

Either you present Scriptures which can define your thinking or I really have no way to properly answer. I answered justification.

Do you agree with what I presented? Are you from the camp that considers that because Christ brought reconciliation/justification that believers are to be reconciled to everyone in the world no matter who or what they represent?

You want to talk about "impute." Fine, give me the definition and Scripture that you are working from.

I am really not trying to avoid your answer, but neither do I want to present an extremely long post that really doesn't pertain to the specifics you desire.