Galatians 3 - Christ being made a curse

[DaveXR650]

No, the word in 1 John you are referencing is "lawlessness" (lawless deeds). John was not speaking of the Law of Deuteronomy 5.

I don't accept that as an answer. While there may be sins and iniquity not mentioned in Deuteronomy 5 notice that for what you are saying to be true then the word in 1John could not and cannot be allowed to include anything in Deut. 5, which would be absurd. And besides, with other scriptural explanations of the meaning of the law with it's expansion to mean anything falling short of loving God above all, and your neighbor as yourself, not to mention Jesus own expansion of the meaning in the Sermon on the Mount - your assertion becomes absurd. There is no sense going any further with you on this as nothing I say will have any meaning to you. You have a tendency to go off on a circular rant and we need to sort this out.

 

[Van]

Since Scripture does not offer a chronological order (a cause and effect) of "bring declared just and then being transferred into Christ" your statement that "Scriptute does not allow rearranging this sequence" is obsolete.

1. Nobody is declared just without being "in Christ".

2. Nobody is "in Christ" without being declared just.

The reason is the declaration in the present is of a future reality. We are justified through faith - but that does not mean one has faith and then waits to be justified.

You are assuming Scripture offers a chronological order of steps rather than an absolute reality. You may be right, or it may be a predisposition.

I am not assuming, I am just reading scripture and accepting what it says.

As far as I can tell, you reject that we, every human, is conceived in iniquity due to the Fall, the result of Adam's sin. But that is what Romans 5:19 clearly says. We were condemned already because of unbelief. John 3:18

Next, you claim their is no purpose in the washing of regeneration, a spiritually dead sinner, not in Christ, can be declared righteous. This of course is a complete fiction. If that was so, the Old Testament saints would not have needed to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect. But they had to wait to be made perfect, to undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration, to be made alive (regenerated) together with Christ, not still separated from Christ, as you claim.

Lastly we are justified through or on the basis of faith. thus we first have faith, and then God credits that existent faith as righteousness. When and if God does, then and only then does God choose us as an individual for salvation. And He chooses us through or by means of transferring us, our human spirit, into Christ's spiritual body, thus we become in Christ, in Him, in the kingdom of the Beloved Son. having now been baptized into Him, believed into Him.

 

[JonC]

I don't accept that as an answer.

Your rejection of the fact does not matter. Facts are objective.

Divine justice/the righteousness of God is more than weighing the actions of men. Our actions (disobedience) show us our sin, but our sin is a more significant a problem.

You are stuck on dealing with the bad fruit (violations of the Law) and never get to the actual problem (the bad tree).

God's righteousness goes to the source of the problem (wickedness) rather than superficially dealing with the things wicked people do.

Righteousness and unrighteousness is what John is addressing in 1 John 1-2. He is not speaking of the Law (which is a different word) but of lawlessness (unrighteousness).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where we ultimately disagree is what the Law was, in the nature of sin divine justice (God's righteousness).

I believe that the moral law, summarized by the Decalogue, is the expression of God's righteousness.

1. Scripture tells us several times that sin is different from violating the Law. Deuteronomy describes the Law as a covenant document that applied only to those within that covenant (not to their forefathers, not to Gentiles who were outside of that covenant).

Deuteronomy describes the Law as it was given by God to the Israelites, but I have already shown you that Abraham obeyed God's 'charge, commandments, statutes and laws' (Genesis 26:5).

Paul describes people from Adam to Moses as not being under the Law because they lived prior to the Law bring given. This agrees with Deuteronomy 5 (that the Law was a covenant for those to whom it was made, not their forefathers). Yet sin reigned apart from the Law.

Abraham lived at that time as I have shown you, but you are blithely ignoring 1 John 3:4 and Romans 4:15, and misunderstanding Romans 5:13-14. 'Sin is not imputed when there is no law,' but 'nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,' therefore there must have been a law, and as I have said several times, God's law is, like Himself, eternal.

Paul describes Gentiles as not being under the Law, yet still under the bondage of sin and death.

The Gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law, but they were under God's righteous, eternal laws, just as Adam was.

We cannot ignore those passages and grasp Paul's arguments.

You seem to be doing both.

2. Scripture describes sin as a deeper problem than a failure to act in accordance to the Law. Sin is wickedness, unrighteousness. Jesus made this clear when He went beyond the Law to explain divine justice.

The Law says "thou shalt not steal". And theft is certainly both a transgression of the Law and a sin. But it is not a violation of the Law to desire something that belongs to another. Yet it is a sin.

It may not be a violation of U.S, or U.K. law, but it is most certainly a violation of God's law to desire something that belongs to another, or do you recognize only nine commamndments and ignore Ephesians 5:3, 5?

3. Justice, in the Bible, is not summarized by the Law. In fact, most of the time Scripture speaks of justice it has nothing to do with the Law or moral infractions.

You say this, but do not give any examples.

The Law was not given to teach us God's righteousness. The Law was given to show us our sin.

It is to do both.

Jesus showed us the righteousness of God.

The Lord Jesus 'became for us wisdom from God - and righteousness and sanctification and redemption,' but He still tells us, "If you love Me, keep My commandments.' You may believe that He has a different standard of righteousness to His Father; I do not.

The Pharisees and Sadducces rejected Jesus' teachings because to them the Law summarized God's justice. They could not accept the gospel either as it was contrary to their philosophy.

The Pharisees and others had a particularly low view of God's moral law. our Lord told them, "All to well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition..' (read Mark 7:6-13).

Just to show you that I am not unsupported in my position, here is an extract from the baptist Catechism ('Keach's') with Benjamin Beddome's Scriptural exposition.
Q.17. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.
Does sin suppose a law? Yes, for where no law is there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15. Is sin a breach of the law? Yes. For it is the transgession of the law, 1 John 3:4. Is the omission of what the law requires sin? Yes. They harkened not to My words nor to My law, Jer. 6:19. And the commission of what it forbids? Yes. They have trespassed against My law, Hos. 8:1.

 

[JonC]

I believe that the moral law, summarized by the Decalogue, is the expression of God's righteousness.

It does not matter whay you or I believe. God has told us that the Law was one (not the only) manifestation of His righteousness.

The Law is just, but it is also a covenant (there is no "moral Law", "ceremonial Law", "dietary Law" as it is one Law ans one covenant).

The moral aspects are righteousness because they come from God. But His righteousness is more than moral issues.

 

[DaveXR650]

Divine justice/the righteousness of God is more than weighing the actions of men.

But it isn't less either. Your whole premise in this thread is that if you can somehow pretend that gentiles are not subject to the law of God then Jesus cannot have been made a curse for them and you can hopefully escape penal substitution.

You are stuck on dealing with the bad fruit (violations of the Law) and never get to the actual problem (the bad tree).

I'm not stuck on anything. You are assuming that you can be made into a new creation while ignoring all scripture that indicates a need for an atonement. Any scripture indicating something was done other than making a new creation you try to explain away as you do in this thread. I don't know of any advocate of penal substitutionary atonement who says a new birth and being born from above is not necessary because of penal substitution occurring. But you keep repeating that over and over. What a shame.

No, the word in 1 John you are referencing is "lawlessness" (lawless deeds). John was not speaking of the Law of Deuteronomy 5.

It is a Greek word for lawlessness and does indeed cover the law as given in Deuteronomy 5. Are you trying to say that you could break any of the 10 Commandments and not have that fall under the Greek word for lawlessness used in 1 John 3:4? This just gets silly.

 

[JonC]

But it isn't less either. Your whole premise in this thread is that if you can somehow pretend that gentiles are not subject to the law of God then Jesus cannot have been made a curse for them and you can hopefully escape penal substitution.

Lol... you turn everything into PSA. I provided passages about justice and you cried "you are attacking PSA!". I provided passages in Leviticus stating what "making atonement" was and you cry "you are attacking PSA!!". I provided passages noting the distinction between sin and the Law and you cry "you are attacking PSA!!".

If PSA is so frail a thing that it cannot stand up to God's Word without merely extracting verses here and there then PSA theorists are indeed to be pitiful souls.


And you are being intentionally dishonest (I say the lie is intentional because it has already been addressed with the pretense it was a mistake).

You changed "the Law", "the Decalogue", to "God's law". The Decalogue are the commandments written on the לוּחוֹת הַבְּרִית ("tablets of the covenant"). That should have clued you in. These commands are a part of a covenant.

God's law is "the Law of Christ". This law fulfills all of the Decalogue because it addresses us - not things we might do.

By definition one of multiple manifestations of something is less than the something manifested.

The Law was just because it was of God. But the Law is not God's righteousness itself.

A man who lusts after women yet obeys the Law by not acting on his lusts is no more righteous than the one who transgresses the Law.

A man who covetes his neighbors belongings but in obefience to the Law refrains from stealing is no better off than the thief, although he has not transgressed the Law he has still sinned.

Have you never read Jesus' words in Matthew 5?

The Law says ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.

The Law does not prohibit wickedness. The Law prohibits wicked actions - it is a transgression to act on our wicked desires. But God's wrath is against the wicked. The wicked shall not enter the kingdom of God. Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm not stuck on anything. You are assuming that you can be made into a new creation while ignoring all scripture that indicates a need for an atonement.

No, you are trapped in the Law of Moses to the extent you are unable to recognize the sin that the Law was intended to show us.

We absolutely need (and have) atonement. I am saying that the Atonement is not as superficial as you make it out to be.

In the Old Testament system "atonement" is the word "cleansing" or "covering". In the New Testament it is the word "reconciliation".

Atonement is not about accounting for actions the wicked have done. It has nothing to do with God supposingly punishing the Just to clear the guilty so that the wicked can escape wrath.

Atonement IS this making us new, cleansing us, purifying us, conforming us into the image of Christ.


You present the Atonement as changing God, satisfying His wrath. But Atonement changes man.

 

[JonC]

It is a Greek word for lawlessness and does indeed cover the law as given in Deuteronomy 5. Are you trying to say that you could break any of the 10 Commandments and not have that fall under the Greek word for lawlessness used in 1 John 3:4? This just gets silly.

Lol... don't be asinine.

Obviously breaking any of God's moral laws (whether one of the Ten Commandments or not) would be lawlessness.

It would show you your sin.

BUT sin exists apart from the Law.

If you lust for your neighbors wife you are practicing lawlessness even though you have not committed a moral violation or transgressed one of the Ten Commandments.

You would not have broken the Law (but you would be in violation of the law of Christ).

 

[DaveXR650]

Lol... you turn everything into PSA. I provided passages about justice and you cried "you are attacking PSA!". I provided passages in Leviticus stating what "making atonement" was and you cry "you are attacking PSA!!". I provided passages noting the distinction between sin and the Law and you cry "you are attacking PSA!!".

You started a thread complaining about something @Martin Marprelate said regarding Christ being made a curse for us. Then you proceeded to butcher Galatians 3 with a take on the relationship of the law to gentiles that is flat out wrong. And your whole beef is that Christ being made a curse for us would remove the curse on us thus showing PSA. You have the option to get off this any time. You are the one who can't think of anything but PSA. Your whole post that this quote is in looks rather unhinged to me and I don't even know how to respond to it. Now you are back into one of your aggressive cycles where you start accusing everyone of lying and before I even finish this post I notice you have fired off another one calling me asinine. Usually after the accusations of lying and then the name calling and then next we start editing and using our moderator power because we are so out on an illogical limb we don't know what else to do.

 

[DaveXR650]

If you lust for your neighbors wife you are practicing lawlessness even though you have not committed a moral violation or transgressed one of the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.... As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JonC]

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.... As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I was not talking about desiring the wife or belongings. I am talking about lust.

You can say Jesus did not know what He was talking about when He said -

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27–28)

But you implying that Jesus was foolish does not make Him so. The actions are manifestations of the problem.

God's law (the law of Christ) goes far deeper than the Law of Moses. His law of righteousness that manifests itself in obedience.

You have the tail wagging the dog.

Paul said "To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. (1 Cor 9:20-21)


That is why you hold a worthless atonement. You are of the mindset of the Pharisees (the Law IS God's righteousness) so you reject the atonement that has come because you will by no means accept the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law (indeed, you claim no such manifestation of God's righteousness can possibly exist).

The reason is, it seems, that you have never studied God's Word. I do not mean you have never read it, or looked at verses here and there. But the fact you imply Jesus had no idea what He was talking about when He went from the Law to what drives transgressions leads to the conclusion you view the Bible as a reference book - a smorgasbord where you pick out verses you think might support your theory.


That is not how study is done. Your theology should come from the Bible, not use the Bible for support. And this has to be in reafing the narrative. Like with 1 John. Had you actually read John's argument you would have known John was not talking about the moral commands in the Law of Moses but contrasting righteousness with lawlessness. Instead you mixed a few verses from Romans (which were discussing the Law of Moses) with a few verses in 1 John - completely ignoring the argument of both Paul and John to prop up your philosophy.

 

[JonC]

You started a thread complaining about something @Martin Marprelate said regarding Christ being made a curse for us. Then you proceeded to butcher Galatians 3 with a take on the relationship of the law to gentiles that is flat out wrong. And your whole beef is that Christ being made a curse for us would remove the curse on us thus showing PSA. You have the option to get off this any time. You are the one who can't think of anything but PSA. Your whole post that this quote is in looks rather unhinged to me and I don't even know how to respond to it. Now you are back into one of your aggressive cycles where you start accusing everyone of lying and before I even finish this post I notice you have fired off another one calling me asinine. Usually after the accusations of lying and then the name calling and then next we start editing and using our moderator power because we are so out on an illogical limb we don't know what else to do.

No, I started this thread discussing that Christ was made a curse to redeem those who were also made a curse under the Law of Moses so that that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

I was not thinking of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I was thinking of the Atonement and our redemption.

This is the second time you have criticized me for constantly thinking about the gospel of Jesus Christ and our redemption. Perhaps if you thought more of it you might think of it more as well.



Paul has explained (not just in Galatians, but very well in Romans) that sin existed even apart from the Law of Moses.

The Law was not given to show us God's righteousness, but instead it was a manifestation of His righteousness intended to show us our sin.

Sin is more than transgressing one of the Ten Commandments. You get closer to the heart of it of you take seriously what Jesus said was the two greatest commandments.

Christ's death is not as superficial and benign as you make it out to be. He actually accomplished our redemption - buying us back.

He created in Himself one new humanity.

 

[JonC]

I am not assuming, I am just reading scripture and accepting what it says.

Then please post the passage itself. I obviously did not say that you were wrong - I said I am not sure that you are right.

It just seems off to me that if a person has faith but dies before God declares him just that the person will not be "in Christ" (a hypothetical, but true if the order is chronological rather than elucidating).

 

[JonC]

The Gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law, but they were under God's righteous, eternal laws, just as Adam was.

Which is what I have said (glad you now agree with me). If you can convince @DaveXR650 we would be a trio.

My point was that Gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law (Christ was made a curse under the Mosaic Law, Deut 21).

The moral elements of the Law are absolute because they (and the entire Law) are a manifestation of God's righteousness.

BUT the Law is not the only manifestation of His righteousness (His righteousness is also manifested apart from the Law). So His righteousness is not the Law itsef.

And God's law (the law of Christ) goes beyond our actions. It assesses what the Law only pointed to - our sin.

 

[DaveXR650]

I was not talking about desiring the wife or belongings. I am talking about lust.

I'm sure that in the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" would be because she makes a better bagel or doesn't have that annoying, cackling laugh your own wife has. Makes perfect sense.

You can say Jesus did not know what He was talking about when He said -

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27–28)

But you implying that Jesus was foolish does not make Him so. The actions are manifestations of the problem.

God's law (the law of Christ) goes far deeper than the Law of Moses. His law of righteousness that manifests itself in obedience.

You have the tail wagging the dog.

You say that but I don't. I think Jesus was indeed expanding our understanding of the law as given. That had already been done in the Old Testament and would be later in the New when the law is described as loving God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. But I'm glad you brought up Jesus teaching in the Sermon. If you notice it is rules for kingdom members - gentiles are not excluded here, and like you said, this is an expansive explanation of the law.

Plus, it gets in to my own belief, that being that the law, while indeed never given to gentiles as a "covenant", always did and always will reveal the will of God for our conduct. And this is very important and often forgotten today. Loving God, following God, and fellowshipping with God as a human being involves a strong desire to want to do his will, which we have expressed in his law, all the other teachings, and other specifics revealed by the Spirit to us. The highest purpose for us is to do his will, and have fellowship with him. Having the penalty for breaking the law paid for gives us a new standing where we can love his commandments and be the servants we were meant to be. While the law can be said to be done away with in the sense that we don't pay the penalty for all the times we have broke it, it does not mean we should now ignore it. In fact, with the Spirit indwelling us we can internalize it as Jesus discussed and live as God created us to live. Jesus in expanding the law for instance of adultery to include lusting does not mean that actual adultery is not any more a problem.

You should go back and read Horatius Bonar on the law. He was one of the most free-grace preachers I know of of Spurgeon's era, yet really emphasized the beauty and joy of obeying all of God's laws and commands as a major part of Christian life. The law was, and still is the revealed will of God. The dietary laws and ceremonial laws given to Jews as a people, have been abrogated. How do we know? Because scripture says so. ("Peter, take, kill, and eat") and of course as we see in Galatians and everywhere else the problems of the circumcision sects. Does it not bother you that in Galatians 3 where you think the law is done away with for gentiles that circumcision is mentioned as the problem and by Galatians 5 and 6 we are talking about conduct again. And the conduct mentioned is all found in the commandments?

 

[DaveXR650]

I was not thinking of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I was thinking of the Atonement and our redemption.

This is the second time you have criticized me for constantly thinking about the gospel of Jesus Christ and our redemption. Perhaps if you thought more of it you might think of it more as well.

That's because I believe that the substitutionary atonement of Christ is the heart of the gospel. You are denying this so yes I will criticize you for doing that while acting as if you know what you are talking about. You are supposed to be a moderator on a Baptist forum so this is shameful in my opinion.

Paul has explained (not just in Galatians, but very well in Romans) that sin existed even apart from the Law of Moses.

Of course it did. No one has said it didn't. But there is not a separate way for Jews and gentiles to be saved. The Jews had two problems that were in addition to the problems we all have as humans. One was that most of them seem to have believed that by being Jews, they and they alone, were automatically saved. Others, also believed that you had to obey the commandments. What you see in Galatians and in other places where the Jews were causing problems is directly related to this in that they still felt that for a gentile to be saved that had to somewhat become a proselyte Jew, circumcision being the main test, which was a fairly big deal for one being saved as an adult. By becoming a Jew so to speak, in addition to believing in Christ, a gentile could be saved. Paul, in his detailed and logical explanations of this in many letters, tried to in much detail explain this to Jews and gentiles alike. You seem to stumble over that.

 

[JonC]

That's because I believe that the substitutionary atonement of Christ is the heart of the gospel.

Exactly. And that theory is the lens you use to "understand" God's words. That is why you are blind to the gospel of Jesus Christ. You cannot follow the narrative because it is to you foolishness. The natural cannot comprehend that which is spiritual. The things of God simply does not conform to the wisdom of men.


This is why you now make the strawman argument that there is only one way of salvation - an argument nobody here opposed.

I never said that the Jews were saved differently from the Gentiles. You saw that because you recognized the passage we were discussing meant you had misused a part of a verse by ripping it out of Paul's argument. You see every passage as an opposition to PSA if taken as a whole.

I said Christ died to create in Himself one humanity. What do you not understand about "one". One is not two. And the Law was never intended to impart salvation (it separated Jews and Gentiless, but both were guilty of sin).

When we went through Leviticus 16 and "making atonement" your reply wss always that it really means something else when applied to the people.

When we go through 1 John 1-3 you ignore John's argument to say he really wss just saying what Paul wrote in Romans.

When we discussed Ezekiel 18 you said it really means that men could not transfer sins.

When we discussed Proverbs 17 you said God was only defining justice when it came to human governance.

When we discussed Psalm 22 you dismissed the forsakenness of the Servants forefathers and the deliverance that was to come and saw it as really meaning divine abandonment.

When we discussed Genesis 3 you dismissed God's words to Adam after he sinned to declare the warning before to really mean spiritually dying.

When we discussed 1 Peter you said it really means that Jesus was punished instead of us.

When Scripture describes Jesus' death as oppression, abuse, and unjust judgment you say it really means just punishment.


You read everything through PSA abd in so doing understand nothing of worth. You do not, at this time, have the capability of understanding Scripture. You have to repent and believe, not conform selected verses to your theory. God warned us about the bmvery thing you are doing. The caution is that the acceptable time may pass.

 

[DaveXR650]

I never said that the Jews were saved differently from the Gentiles. You saw that because you recognized the passage we were discussing meant you had misused a part of a verse by ripping it out of Paul's argument. You see every passage as an opposition to PSA if taken as a whole.

Well good. Because every serious Bible teacher I know of teaches that we (meaning gentiles) can make the claim that Jesus was made a curse for us just as the Jews. This is simple and essential to normal Christian soteriology.

You read everything through PSA abd in so doing understand nothing of worth. You do not, at this time, have the capability of understanding Scripture. You have to repent and believe, not conform selected verses to your theory. God warned us about the bmvery thing you are doing. The caution is that the acceptable time may pass.

Yes. Please lump me in with all the Reformers, Calvinist and Arminian, Bonar, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones and all the rest. I pretty much am satisfied that they all are basically correct in the substitutionary death of Christ, his becoming a curse for us, and bearing our sin as being the central facet of the atonement. And that is after all you claim to reveal. They give scripture too, as I have tried to do, and just have come up with obviously a different conclusion. I don't find it any longer to be useful to discuss this with you for several reasons, the main one being that your beliefs are hard to identify with any other real system or theology or group, partly because of the groups you do try to identify with having varied and unspecified theologies themselves, but partly because of you. And as I have noticed in recent posts, you seem to become more abusive and nasty as we go on, which to me indicates other issues which I don't wish to deal with.

As a complete amateur in discussing theology, if I have said anything that would vary significantly with mainstream reformed theologians it's probably because of my clumsiness and is not intentional. I think I align with Baptist fundamentalists, Free will Baptists, old line Methodists, classic Arminians, and of course Calvinists, and even Molinists when it comes to the atonement. I have sufficient references to prove that in each of those cases at hand. At any rate, I don't wish to see any more of your nasty and personal posts - and apparently, not many others wish to discuss this with you. My assumption being that most people on this site will be in one of the groups I mentioned and don't want to deal with you either.

 

[JonC]

Well good. Because every serious Bible teacher I know of teaches that we (meaning gentiles) can make the claim that Jesus was made a curse for us just as the Jews. This is simple and essential to normal Christian soteriology.

Yes, like I said - Jesus was made a curse for all of humanity. While all men were not under the Law the Law had to be canceled so that the Promise would come to Gentiles.

You ate trying so hard to defend PSA that you see every passage as a threat. I am not talking about PSA. This thread is not about PSA. This topic has nothing to do with PSA.

You have not been following the argument at all. I could post "alpha contamination is easily shielded but worse than beta if inhaled" and you wpuld reply "No, that is a strange view, PSA is correct." Every thing is not about theories of Atonement.


1. The Old Covenant was limited to a paticular group of people with whom the Old Covenant was made.

2. Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant. Nobody from Adam to Moses were under the Law.

3. Sin still reigned over men - even to those apart from the Law.

4. Every person under the Law have been made curses under the Law. Jews who transgressed any of the 613 laws became a curse.

5. The Law was a certificate of debt against those under the Law. It showed men their deficiency (their sin).

6. The Law was never intended to impart righteousness but instead was to show man his sin.

7. The Law states that any petson hung on a tree is a curse. Jesus was hung on a tree. Jesus - although completely obedient - was made a curse under the Law.

8. Jesus canceled the Law, He nailed it on the tree.

9. This was so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.



This has nothing to do with any of the theories of Atonement. You are so brainwashed that you see every passage a threat to PSA unless it is accompanied by an explanation of how it is really PSA.


The point was that the Old Covenant was canceled and the new has come as a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law and Jesus created in Himself one new humanity.

 

[JonC]

As a complete amateur in discussing theology, if I have said anything that would vary significantly with mainstream reformed theologians it's probably because of my clumsiness and is not intentional.

You have said things that vary significantly from mainstream Reformed theologians.

This is because there are significant differences between mainstream Reformed theologiand.

But who cares? The mainstream is nominal Christianity (the Way is narrow). And just picking a mainstream group to follow is not biblical.

Don't be "of the Reformers". Be "of Christ".

Put aside your obsession with a theory and discuss passages that are being discussed.

The topic of this thread was not PSA. It was the cancelation of the Law and the inclusion of Jews as Christ created in Himself one new humanity.