Yes, that is what I am suggesting the passage states. Our sins are not overlooked. They are forgiven based on the accomplished work of Christ.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink
- Thread starter Zaatar71
- Start date
You have left out the Lord Jesus Christ.
'"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Evideintly not for you.
Last edited:
No, I did not.
By "Christ" I mean "the Lord Jesus Christ".
"Repent", "turn from wickedness", "turn to God", be "made a new creation in Christ", make "a new heart", "God takes out our old heart and spirit", "God gives us a new heart and spirit", God puts His Spirit in us", we "die to sin", we "are made alive in Christ", we are "made into the image of Christ", we "put to death our old selves"....
This is the work of Jesus Christ. He is this "life giving spirit". He is the Life.
Now, if you prefer you can replace "Christ" with "the Lord Jesus Christ" but I use cut snd paste on my list (you have a problem with "Christ", so you can make that change).
My point is not onky what you believe is required is not in God's words but you also minimize (if not outright deny) what is in God's words.
I am still not clear on what you consider the accomplished work of Christ to be, and how they lead to the forgiveness of our sins.
Firstly, I have looked through your post #79 again and I can still see no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ (I think it's nice to give Him His full title sometimes, don't you?).
Secondly, you are missing the nub of the whole matter. You are missing the point of first importance Why did Paul say that he determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified? Because, 'For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures ......' (1 Cor. 15:3-4). What do the Scriptures say about the Lord Jesus dying for our sins 'according to the Scriptures'? 'But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed...... the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.'
All the rest is not of no importance, but they flow from the most important thing the Lord Jesus taking our sins upon Himself and paying the penalty for them in full. His rising from the dead is of equal importance, but that is not the matter at issue.
I view the accomplished work of Christ to be the reconciliation of man to God. This does not lead to the forgiveness of sins. This is (includes) the forgiveness of sins.
In other words, I view the Cross as God reconciling mankind to Himself, not counting sins against them.
Christ is the surety of a better covenant.
Excellent! How is the cross, which Paul says is of first importance, the forgiveness of sins?
We have had:
Which sounds like an awful lot of work. How is the cross the forgiveness of sins?JonC said:
Why does the cross lead God not to count mankind's sins against them? I know, but I want to see what you think.
What do you think a "surety" is? Well, to save time, I'll tell you. A surety is someone who takes on and guarantees the debts of someone else. Paul offers to be a surety for Onesimus in Philemon 18-19. There are verses in Proverbs advising people not to become sureties (Prov. 6:1-5; 11:15) because if the person for whom one is surety defaults, the lender will come after him as if the debts are really his. We owe God a debt of righteousness that we are by no means able to pay, having no righteousness of our own. The Lord Jesus has graciously agreed to be our Surety. He has no debt of righteousness to pay for Himself, but on the cross He paid our debt in full (c.f. Heb. 10:12) so that God can say, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Heb. 10:17). The price is paid; we have been redeemed (Rev. 5:9-10). Alleluia!
I used "surety" for the kjv folk. The word is ἔγγυος which means "guarantee".
Paul does not say the forgiveness of sins is of first importance. Christ's death is the reconciliation of man to God and God forgiving the sins of man.
The "how" Christ's death effects our forgiveness is not as superficial as God punishing our sins on Jesus. The "how" is by His righteousness, Christ becoming the "Second Adam" (reconciling man to God).
@Martin Marprelate
A way of putting it that may help is I believe the Atonement addressed the cause (unrighteousness) rather than the symptom (sins), thereby taking care of thar symptom.
That is what I mean by the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement being too superficial.
We still bear our sins in the flesh and due in our bodies because of sin. But we are made alive because of righteousness.
God predestined those in Christ to be made in His likeness, to be justified and to be glorified. He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins and the guarantee of a better covenant.
We are now declared just based on this guarantee (Christ Himself) as we are predestined to be conformed into Hos likeness.
A way of putting it that may help is I believe the Atonement addressed the cause (unrighteousness) rather than the symptom (sins), thereby taking care of thar symptom.
That is what I mean by the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement being too superficial.
We still bear our sins in the flesh and due in our bodies because of sin. But we are made alive because of righteousness.
God predestined those in Christ to be made in His likeness, to be justified and to be glorified. He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins and the guarantee of a better covenant.
We are now declared just based on this guarantee (Christ Himself) as we are predestined to be conformed into Hos likeness.
OK. I think "guarantor" as in the ESV translation of Heb.7:22, is better as the Lord Jesus is the one who gives the guarantee.
So here's my post again: What do you think a "guarantor" is? Well, to save time, I'll tell you. A guarantor is someone who takes on and guarantees the debts of someone else. Paul offers to be a guarantor for Onesimus in Philemon 18-19. There are verses in Proverbs advising people not to become guarantors (Prov. 6:1-5; 11:15) because if the person for whom one is surety defaults, the lender will come after him as if the debts are really his. We owe God a debt of righteousness that we are by no means able to pay, having no righteousness of our own. The Lord Jesus has graciously agreed to be our Guarantor. He has no debt of righteousness to pay for Himself, but on the cross He paid our debt in full (c.f. Heb. 10:12) so that God can say, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Heb. 10:17). The price is paid; we have been redeemed (Rev. 5:9-10). Alleluia!
No indeed; it was you who wrote that. "I view the accomplished work of Christ to be the reconciliation of man to God. This does not lead to the forgiveness of sins. This is (includes) the forgiveness of sins."
Oh look! You've said it again! What Paul says is that Christ dying for our sins and rising again according to the Scriptures is what is of first importance. In what way, according to the Scriptures, which means the O.T. Scriptures, is Christ dying on the cross the reconciliation of man to God (2 Cor. 5:18), and how does it bring about the forgiveness of our sins by God. Why could not God simply give us new birth, make us a new creation and all the other stuff you mentioned without involving Christ at all?
That, of course, is Luther's 'Great Exchange." Our sins are imputed to our Lord (Isaiah 53:6) and He pays the penalty for them ('pierced for our transgressions' etc.), and we have His perfect righteousness imputed to us. But if all it is is Christ reconciling man to God, why did He have to die, and in such a terrible way? Why could not the Lord Jesus simply live a perfect life for 3 1/2 years to establish His righteousness, and then shoot off back to heaven?
ἔγγυος is the guarantee or one who guarantees. Literally it is the assurance. You are placing it into an accounting context, which influences how you view the topic.
You offer Hebrews 10:12 (He paid our debt in full) as the reason "their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Heb 10:17).
The problem is Hebrews 10:12 does not say anything about Jesus paying any debt. It says "He offered one sacrifice for one time".
Sins are manifestations of a state of falling short of the glory of God (they are "fruits" of the flesh).
I will use an illustraton:
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. (Mat 7:18).
The cross was not God punishing Jesus for the fruit produced by the bad trees so that He would not have to punish the bad trees.
It was God reconciling bad trees to Himself, not addressing the fruit, which is why we urge bad trees individually to be reconciled to God. The bad trees die, which takes care of the bad fruit. But God makes those trees into good trees which produce good fruit.
Anyway, your theory is too superficial. You are caught up in tackling the symptoms of the problem.
I am saying that the Cross took care of the actual problem (not the bad fruits but the bad tree). It was accomplished on the Cross.
@Martin Marprelate
A good way to sum up our differences regarding the cross is to place them side by side.
You have presented the cross as God laying our sins on Jesus and Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins in our place.
I have presented the cross as Jesus bearing our sins, reconciling God and mankind, which necessarily means our sins are forgiven based on Christ Himself.
So I view your position as too superficial. I view the blood of Christ as actually accomplishing this reconciliation. Rather than addressing sins the cross addresses the cause of that sin (we fall short of the glory of God).
That is why I used an illustration of a bad tree (natural man) bearing bad fruit (sins).
I believe that the cross completed that work of God in recreating that "bad tree", which by necessity takes care of the fruit it had produced.
The blood of Christ shed was not just a step in addressing the problem of man by looking at the "bad fruits" of the "bad tree". Reconciliation was actually accomplished in the Person of Jesus Christ on the Cross.
A good way to sum up our differences regarding the cross is to place them side by side.
You have presented the cross as God laying our sins on Jesus and Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins in our place.
I have presented the cross as Jesus bearing our sins, reconciling God and mankind, which necessarily means our sins are forgiven based on Christ Himself.
So I view your position as too superficial. I view the blood of Christ as actually accomplishing this reconciliation. Rather than addressing sins the cross addresses the cause of that sin (we fall short of the glory of God).
That is why I used an illustration of a bad tree (natural man) bearing bad fruit (sins).
I believe that the cross completed that work of God in recreating that "bad tree", which by necessity takes care of the fruit it had produced.
The blood of Christ shed was not just a step in addressing the problem of man by looking at the "bad fruits" of the "bad tree". Reconciliation was actually accomplished in the Person of Jesus Christ on the Cross.
What satisfied and paid for the satisfaction of God towards His wrath towards us as sinners? A transaction happened at Calavry, as in that Cross Jesus was imputed to receive from the father what we were to get as sinners, and due to Him atoning for those sins, we are able to get imputed his righteousness
We die in the body because of sin while we live in the spirit because of righteousness.
On the cross what happened is Jesus accomplished this reconciliation of man and God by His own blood.
Why are you so concerned about God's wrath. I thought you believed His wrath was propitiated (ceased, turned to favor). That would mean no wrath exists for whom they were propitiated.
The Psa atonement view gives the most glory to the Trinity then any other explanation, a sit totally glorified them
No, it does not.
And you did not take the time to consider what I posted or Scripture. You just fired off a meaningless response. Take your time. Slow down and think next time.
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement looks to God as punishing our sins on Christ in order for us not to be punished.
It is very superficial and presents the blood of Christ - the cross itself - as merely addressing the "bad fruits" (sins) of a
"bad trees" (natural man) and afterwards these "bad trees" dying and being made into "good trees" (righteous) that would mot be cast into the fire anyway.
The theory considers Christ's blood as an exercise in accounting but of no actual redemptive worth.
What gives God the glory is Christ actually accomplishing the reconciliation God says it accomplished with the blood of Christ.
You started off using the word 'surety.' Then you wanted to switch it to 'guarantee.' Now you want to say it's the 'assurance.' I think you should make up your mind. Enguos only appears once in the N.T., in Heb. 7:22, but I believe it is the word used in the LXX in Prov. 6:1-5 & 11:15, both of which are in an accounting context. The Lord Jesus is the one who acted as 'guarantor;' the One who guarantees. Now in Britain, house prices are ridiculously high, and first-time buyers have to borrow huge amounts of money to get on the housing ladder. So parents will often become guarantors to their children, which is fine so long as the kids pay the mortgage. But if they default, the bank will come after the guarantor as if it were he who had defaulted.
That was the position of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the guarantor of a better covenant. The sacrifices of the Old Covenant could never take away sins. The Lord Jesus has come to do what we could not.do for ourselves; He came to pay what we could not pay. Sins are represented as debts in Matt. 6:12. On the cross, He has paid our sin debt on our behalf
It's an accounting word.
The problem is that Hebrews 10:12 does not say what you say it does. It says, 'But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice FOR SINS forever, sat down at the right hand of God.' He paid our sin debt in full, and that is why Heb. 10:17 says, 'their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' It's been paid. Our Guarantor has paid what we could not pay. Alleluia!
[/QUOTE]
This is a dreadful illustration because it takes away any work for the Lord Jesus to do. He might as well have stayed in heaven. You are also making sin too superficial. It is more than a forestery problem.
But you said just now that God had turned the bad trees into good trees producing good fruit. So what was the Lord Jesus doing on the cross? How did the cross take care of any problem, which in any case, according to you had been sorted out anyway? The Bible will tell you if you will only listen. Jesus Christ offered one sacrifice for sins forever. By His wounds, we are healed. Your solution sounds Socinian to me.
Yes. I started off using the English word surety because so many use the kjv.
Surety is a guarantee. We sometimes use it associated with a debt (a guarantee a debt will be paid) or a guarantee that something will occur (like a surety bond).
But the word is ἔγγυος, which means guarantee. I use it because many often associate surety with accounting (even though the word itself is not).
The problem with your view is it diminishes the blood of Christ.
I believe the reconciliation of man to God was actually accomplished at the cross.
Where you present Christ as dying to address the problem of "bad fruit" I believe Christ's death actually addresses the problem of the "bad trees" rather than what they produce.
But yes, surety is used in accounting. It is not an accounting word itself as it is not by any means isolated to accounting.
The most common use is a three party arrangement. One party allows something to another party based on the surety (that third party).
God declares us righteous not based on Christ as this surety or guarantee (we will be conformed into His image).
Last edited:
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
As God the Son, the Second Divine Person in the Triune Godhead, Who is God, Jesus was United with the Human Body God had Elected and Prepared for Him.
As the Virgin Born Godman, Jesus was the Perfect Expression of God, Who Lived a Perfect Life under the Universal Moral Law of God.
God did not have an innate Attribute of Righteousness which had been Tried and Lived out under His Universal Moral Law, until Jesus was Perfectly Obedient to all the Demands of the Law.
By Living His Life Perfectly under God's Law, Jesus became the End of the Law for Righteousness.
That Righteous Life Jesus Accomplished was what was Sacrificed to God.
The life of the flesh is in the blood.
Jesus Righteous Human Body and Righteous Soul were Made an Offering for sin, that was the sins God's Chosen Elect were guilty of, having broken God's Law and Offended His Holiness.
The Wrathful Rod of Justice for having Infinite sin Charged to the account of His children God Gave Jesus to Save would have Smitted them and been Poured Out as their cup to drink Forever in the Lake of Fire had its Just Satisfaction Accomplished by the Reverse Correllary of the Punishment they deserved Poured Out on the Perfectly Righteous Son of God on the cross.
The Account of the guilt of all the sins of God's Elect were Imputed to Jesus as the Wrathful Rod of Justice Smitted Jesus' Righteous Body and Soul to Death.
The wages of sin was death, when the Lord Laid on Him the Iniquity of us all who were to be Saved, and Jesus Laid Down His Perfectly Righteous Life for His sheep, and Died the Just for the unjust.
Nothing more fully proves Christ's Free and Full Assent and Consent to do the Will of His Father, Proposed in the Doctrine of the Eternal Covenant of Grace, than His actual Performance of it.
Was it God's Will that Jesus should take the Care and Charge of all God's Elect, and lose none? Jesus has Done it, #Joh 17:12.
Was it God's Will that Jesus should Assume Human Nature? the Word has been made flesh, and Dwelt among men, #Joh 1:14.
Was it God's Will that Jesus should Obey the Law? he is become the End of the Law for Righteousness, #Ro 10:4.
Was it God's Will that Jesus should suffer Death, the Penalty of the Law? Jesus has Suffered, the Just for the unjust, to Bring them to God, #1Pe 3:18.
Was it God's Will that Jesus should Make Himself an Offering for sin? He has Given Himself to God, an Offering and a Sacrifice, of a Sweet Smelling Savour, #Eph 5:2.
In a word, Was it God's Will l that Jesus should Redeem His people from all their Iniquities? Yes, Jesus has Obtained an Eternal Redemption for them, by His Resurrection from Death, #Heb 9:12.
Jesus' Righteousness He Accomplished by Living Perfectly under the Law of God in a Human Body and Soul, once He was Made the End of the Law for Righteousness, was then Imputed to the lost sinner when they were Regenerated by the Holy Spirit in their New Birth.
Once that saved soul is Imputed with Jesus' Righteous Life, they have no sin which can be Judged by God and are, therefore, Pardoned and Wholly Justified from the Law.
With Jesus' Righteous Redemption of the sinner's deceitful, God hating heart, He addressed them as Hellbound sinners, when Jesus Gave His Righteous Life He had Lived Out under God's Law and became the End of the Law for Righteousness.
God addressed the heart of the sinner who's mind was at emnity against God through Jesus' Redemption because He had a Righteous Life to Give, after JESUS FULFILLED THE LAW.
Your statement skips Jesus having Fulfilled the Law by His Perfect Life, and credits the sinner's New Birth with having Fulfilled the Law, but not before skipping the crediting of the sinful State of sinners to sinners who are without hope, without Jesus the Savior.
Last edited:
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689:
"Christ, by His Obedience and Death, did Fully Discharge the debt of all those who are Justified;
"and did, by the Sacrifice of Himself in the Blood of His cross, undergoing in their Stead the Penalty due to them, make a Proper, Real, and Full Satisfaction to God’s Justice in their behalf;8
"yet, in as much as He was Given by the Father for them, and His Obedience and Satisfaction Accepted in their Stead, and both Freely, not for anything in them,9 their Justification is only of Free Grace, that both the exact Justice and Rich Grace of God might be Glorified in the Justification of sinners.10"
8 Heb. 10:14; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Isa. 53:5–6
9 Rom. 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:21
10 Rom. 3:26; Eph. 1:6–7, 2:7
Actually Jesus is eternally righteous. His righteousness was demonstrated by His obedience even to the death on a Cross.
The law (obeying or disobeying) does not make one righteous. The law concerns behavior - obedience or disobedience.
To us the law showed us our sins. But our sins are manifestations of our state (falling short of God's authority).