The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

JonC · Sep 15, 2025

Brightfame52 said:
Christ propitiation is valid for anybody he died for even before they believe, for he paid for the sins of his sheep before they were believers that's why they become believers

Again you are still reading into the text.

Illustration:

A rose is the propitiation for my wife's anger, not o ly my wife's anger but every wife's anger. This does not mean that all husband's experience this propitiation (not all will but the rose).

What you offered is some truth and some theory. Even if your theory is correct, it would not change the fact you are reading into 1 Jn 2:2.

Another way of summarizing the verse is to say that in Christ we escape the wrath to come.

We need to be faithful to Scripture. If you replace what is said by another truth you have truth, but you also missed what the verse was actually saying.

Don't forget that John Calvin, who taught your doctrine of election, taught that 1 Jn 2:2 said Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the world (without distractions or qualifications).

The verse does not contradict your faith. You are reading into it. Verse 1...maybe another story.

There are only two legitimate ways of interpreting verse 2. I told you one (mine). Yours is not the second.

Brightfame52 said:
You just dont understand 1 Jn 2:2 propitiation

No, I understand propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2. Where you view it as a verb it is actually a noun. Christ Himself is the Propitiation.

You are confusing propitiation with propitiation and propitiated.

I do not understand why. Most Calvinist professors would call you out on your failure to diagram the sentence even though they would agree with you regarding whose sins are propitiated.

In fact....do that. Diagram the sentence. If you do you may realize your mistake.

There are only two legitimate interpretations of that verse.

Essentually you are saying, under one, that the wicked have a different propitiation for their sins.

Under the other you are denying those who reject Christ are condemned for rejecting Him (that the Father has given all judgment to Him).

You are wrong because no man can come to the Father but by Jesus. I know you dont see it. Diagram the sentence and you might.

Zaatar71 said:
Again, you are welcome to your opinion which is highly subjective !

Yes you do and again you are welcome to your opinion.

more opinion

it is an opinion that no one I know shares !

Your narrow opinion does not

Evidently ,what is written eludes you, and you still have failed to address the links written. It is obvious you cannot do it, or you would have by now.

Ot does not matter if nobody you knows is aware of the fact that Oenal Substitution Theory has never been the predominant Christian understanding. Facts are facts. Since the 1300's the predominantly theory has been Satisfaction Theory (even among protestants...technically this is still the orthodox theory among Lutherans). Ransom theory gets the second spot. Recapitulation takes the third. Christus Victor is in fourth. Penal Substitution Theory is fifth.

But among Presbyterians, Penal Substitution Theory is the prominent view (the only ones until a few decades ago). Baptists are in a spectrum....most hold not-quite-Penal Substitution Theory (a mixture of several competing ideas applied depending on the topic). Reformed Baptists hold Penal Substitution Theory, as do Methodists.

I did not address the links because I did not read the links. I held Penal Substitution Theory. I taught it in theology. It influenced my sermons about the Cross. I do not need to read penal substitution theorists defending their position becausecI was one of them.

I also have no interest in reading the Book of Mormon, although I was never a Mormon.

BUT if you post Scripture I will read that.

Brightfame52 · Sep 15, 2025

JonC said:
Again you are still reading into the text.

Illustration:

A rose is the propitiation for my wife's anger, not o ly my wife's anger but every wife's anger. This does not mean that all husband's experience this propitiation (not all will but the rose).

What you offered is some truth and some theory. Even if your theory is correct, it would not change the fact you are reading into 1 Jn 2:2.

Another way of summarizing the verse is to say that in Christ we escape the wrath to come.

We need to be faithful to Scripture. If you replace what is said by another truth you have truth, but you also missed what the verse was actually saying.

You just dont understand 1 Jn 2:2 propitiation

JonC said:
No, I understand propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2. Where you view it as a verb it is actually a noun. Christ Himself is the Propitiation.

You are confusing propitiation with propitiation and propitiated.

I do not understand why. Most Calvinist professors would call you out on your failure to diagram the sentence even though they would agree with you regarding whose sins are propitiated.

In fact....do that. Diagram the sentence. If you do you may realize your mistake.

There are only two legitimate interpretations of that verse.

Essentually you are saying, under one, that the wicked have a different propitiation for their sins.

Under the other you are denying those who reject Christ are condemned for rejecting Him (that the Father has given all judgment to Him).

You are wrong because no man can come to the Father but by Jesus. I know you dont see it. Diagram the sentence and you might.

You going all over the place you just don't understand propitiation

JonC said:
No, I understand propitiation. It is something that turns aside wrath or anger.

You miss what I was saying.

You are not talking about propitiation but about sins being propitiated.

Read the verse and pay attention to the tenses of the words.

Christ Himself is the Propitiation.
Men have their sins propitiated.
In Him we escape the wrath to come.

By His Death those He died for escape the wrath to come. If He did not die for you then you will not escape the wrath to come

JonC said:
I am not saying your doctrine is wrong (or right, for that matter).

You are talking about propitiation in general.

I am talking about 1 Jn 2:2.

If we replace what John is saying in the verse, even with something that is true, then we miss what John is saying.

The "so" in John 3:16 means "thusly", or "in this way". God loved the World in this way, He sent His Son.
People have confused the "so" with a quality- God loved the World so much...

It is not false to speak of God's great love. BUT when we misinteroret the "so" as a quality we miss what John is saying even though what we say is true.

Same with 1 Jn 2:2.

Verse 1 telks us that if we sin Jesus is our Advocate.
Verse 2 identifies Jesus Himself as the Propitiation.

Even in John 3:16 the world God so loved He saved it through Christ read verse 17 so that limits the scope of who the world is, it can't be those who are lost under the wrath of God.

And God's great love actually saved them He so loved read Ephesians 2:4-5 what does it say about His great love?

JonC said:
I think you may have missed my point.

If you read "so" in John 3:16 as "so much" you end up with a truth that is stated in other verses but you miss what John 3:16 means.

I have not argued against the fact rhat Christ gave His life for His sheep.

I am simply saying that 1 Jn 2:2 is saying something you are missing - not that your overall theology is wrong (or right).

Even if you read something that is biblical, that is true and correct doctrine, into a verse you would be missing what that verse is actually saying. What is said may be just as impirtant as the truth read into the passage.

I think you are imagining things

JonC said:
Lol....no, I am reading it.

John makes the point that if you sin you have an Advocate in Christ, and Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

Jesus is our Advocate (in Hebrews, our Mediator) who advocates for us based not on us or what we have or will do but based on Himself (His identity and work). He IS the Propitiation.

I know you don't not believe that to be true.

And I am not sure what, if not Jesus Himself, you believe to be the propitiation for your sins, but whatever it is it is not good enough. Christ alone is Himself the Propitiation for our sins.

You far out friend.

JonC said:
Lol....I know you are just messing around, and it is fun (I know you are not that illiterate).

You know how that sentence actually reads. You just do not want to admit it on the public forum.

I do not really know if it is pride, that you simply can't admit you read into the passage, courage that you do not mind looking stupid, ignorance that you struggle with the structure of the English language, or thst you (like me) are just passing time.

But anybody reading this, who is familiar with sentence structure, knows that "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" is calling Jesus Christ the Propitiation for our sins.

Or expiation, or atoning sacrifice....depending on interpretation. But it is obvious that John is identifying Jesus as the ἱλασμός.

Well you are very good sending out a barrage of insults

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

JonC said:
I did not accuse you of lying for being unaware that most theologians and professors rejected Penal Substitution Theory. That I chalked up to ignorance. The majority today hold Satisfaction Theory and reject Penal Substitution Theory.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion which is highly subjective !

JonC said:
I believe it is wrong,

Yes you do and again you are welcome to your opinion.

JonC said:
so I am with you in holding a minority view. I just disagree with your minority view and you disagree with mine (I can say mine was the majority view at one time, you cannot....so there's that).

more opinion

JonC said:
But it is not an opinion (that Penal Substitution Theory is a minority view within Christianity.

it is an opinion that no one I know shares !

JonC said:
It is a fact.

Your narrow opinion does not

JonC said:
Truth is not subjective, no matter your opinion.

Yes, I know that when I posted Jesus was God's Elect I was posting truth.

[The readon I called you a liar (and stand by that statement) is that when I said that Jesus is God's Elect and wuoted 1 Jn 2:2 that "He Himself is the Propitiation" you quoted it and replied that I denied God chose His covenant children and that Jesus died for them.

I never posted anything like that. I just quoted Scripture. You siimply lied, and there is no getting around that fact.]

there was no lie, you just tried to say it was for all men, and that is not true.

[ you do not understand the topic, and seem to think calling me and No, you fo not agree with Scripture. I think at some level you know this or you woothers names makes your posted errors ok.
John tells us that Jesus advocates for us if we sin, that He is the Propitiation for the sins of rhe World. John is not talking about people groups, but that Christians have an Advocate in Christ Jesus snd He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins, not only ours but also for the World.

I understand your philosophy cannot handle God's Word, at least how you hold it. But that is a you problem, a subjective problem. Scripture is objective. Scripture does not care about your feelings or "your truth". We have "what is written".

Evidently ,what is written eludes you, and you still have failed to address the links written. It is obvious you cannot do it, or you would have by now.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

JonC said:
Ot does not matter if nobody you knows is aware of the fact that Oenal Substitution Theory has never been the predominant Christian understanding.

Facts are facts. Since the 1300's the predominantly theory has been Satisfaction Theory (even among protestants...technically this is still the orthodox theory among Lutherans). Ransom theory gets the second spot. Recapitulation takes the third. Christus Victor is in fourth. Penal Substitution Theory is fifth.

But among Presbyterians, Penal Substitution Theory is the prominent view (the only ones until a few decades ago). Baptists are in a spectrum....most hold not-quite-Penal Substitution Theory (a mixture of several competing ideas applied depending on the topic). Reformed Baptists hold Penal Substitution Theory, as do Methodists.

I did not address the links because I did not read the links. I held Penal Substitution Theory. I taught it in theology. It influenced my sermons about the Cross. I do not need to read penal substitution theorists defending their position becausecI was one of them.

I also have no interest in reading the Book of Mormon, although I was never a Mormon.

BUT if you post Scripture I will read that.

Your opinions do not mean much. No one I know, read, or have spoken with denies the PSA. only you. You admit you did not read the links, I give you credit for that. Maybe if you read them carefully you will come to a better understanding than what you tried to hold in the past.
they posted at least 54 scriptures, that you did not read. They are still right there on the thread. No one is stopping you from reading them now.

JonC said:
I doubt I would understand Penal Substitution Theory any better. I have a very good understanding.

I have read Murray, Knox, and Owen (about everything they wrote). I have also read every Spurgeon sermon and his notes. I have read most of John Gill's works, all of FF Bruce's commentaries, most of John MacArthur sermons and many of his books. I have read most of JI Packer's books, I think all of John Piper's books.

I have a large library. And I have most on the library digitized (I had the John Murray book I quoted, for example).

I'll look at your link and see who wrote them. Not wasting any time reading them, though.

I posted it for others who might want to learn.

JonC said:
I never said they were cukt keaders...although some soeak about them as if they are in their cult.

I have not offered any opinions or ideas about church history. I mentioned a few facts about Christian History. No opinions.

Like you I disagree with the most popular position on Atonement. But that's fine with me. Narrow is the way.

There is a glaring problem with your post. You say that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is in whatvis written in the New Testament BUT you can't serm to find sny actual verses in the New Testament where the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory is written.

Start with this one - quote a New Testament verse that states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

When you describe godly men and mention them with Mormons and Jw's it is not a good example is it?

Sure, nt verses;
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls..

Heb9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? He was High priest and the sacrifice offered.

Heb.9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Rev .13:8...8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. these are enough for those who want to read and understand.

JonC · Sep 15, 2025

Zaatar71 said:
Your opinions do not mean much.

I doubt I would understand Penal Substitution Theory any better. I have a very good understanding.

I have read Murray, Knox, and Owen (about everything they wrote). I have also read every Spurgeon sermon and his notes. I have read most of John Gill's works, all of FF Bruce's commentaries, most of John MacArthur sermons and many of his books. I have read most of JI Packer's books, I think all of John Piper's books.

I have a large library. And I have most on the library digitized (I had the John Murray book I quoted, for example).

I'll look at your link and see who wrote them. Not wasting any time reading them, though.

Zaatar71 said:
Your opinions do not mean much.

I can't find the link. Is it in this thread?

Of those you quoted -

I know the Murray books you reference, and I have read at least one of Albert Maryin's books (that I can think of...Practicle Calvinism..? Something like that).

I know of Nick Batzig and have seen his sermons (met him once in North Charleston as well). I think he is or was (this was several years ago) a Presbyterian preacher.

I know too much about Greg Bahnsen to care about his opinions. He departed from mainstream Christianity and advocated a very unbiblical view of the church.

But I can't find the link. Too many posts and threads.

Zaatar71 said:
Not interested in your ideas of church history. You have offered no scripture at all

John Murray, and Al martin are not cult leaders. You cannot deal with what they have offered. More of your false history

This is a complete falsehood/, It shows you do not understand the word. Thanks for trying.
The Apostolic church taught psa as they taught scripture as given by God. You do not understand the language of substitution as is written.

WGT,Shedd
In the majority of the passages, however, which speak of Christ's sufferings and death, the preposition "ὑπέρ" (hyper) is employed: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for (ὑπέρ) you" (Luke 22:19–20); "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51); "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for (ὑπέρ) his friends" (John 15:13); "Christ died for (ὑπέρ) the ungodly; while we were yet sinners Christ died for (ὑπέρ) us" (Rom. 5:6–8); "he delivered him up for (ὑπέρ) us all" (Rom. 8:32); "if one died for (ὑπέρ) all then all died" (2 Cor. 5:14–15); "he made him to be sin for (ὑπέρ) us" (2 Cor. 5:21); "being made a curse for (ὑπέρ) us" (Gal. 3:13); "Christ gave himself for (ὑπέρ) us an offering and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2, 25); "the man Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for (ὑπέρ) all" (1 Tim. 2:5–6); Christ "tasted death for (ὑπέρ) every man" (Heb. 2:9); Christ "suffered the just for (ὑπέρ) the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18).

The preposition ὑπέρ, like the English preposition for, has two significations. It may denote advantage or benefit, or it may mean substitution

You have failed to interact with what has been offered, You seek to dismiss it. You do not really grasp the gospel evidently. I have no choice but dismiss your non responsive entries. Thanks for trying.

The apostles were used by God to write the NT, which contains PSA in that which was written. You have failed once again to interact to the many posts showing what scripture teaches. If you want to give your revised version, start a thread on your own. Professor John Murray is known worldwide. I am not sure if you are known anywhere??? Have you written or published anything, anywhere? I think not.
So again, try your ideas on a new thread. No one seems interested in what you are saying, all off topic. Thanks again

I never said they were cukt keaders...although some soeak about them as if they are in their cult.

I have not offered any opinions or ideas about church history. I mentioned a few facts about Christian History. No opinions.

Like you I disagree with the most popular position on Atonement. But that's fine with me. Narrow is the way.

There is a glaring problem with your post. You say that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is in whatvis written in the New Testament BUT you can't serm to find sny actual verses in the New Testament where the teachings of Penal Substitution Theory is written.

Start with this one - quote a New Testament verse that states Jesus suffered God's wrath.

Zaatar71 said:
I posted it for others who might want to learn.

OK. That is the reason I continue our discussion as well. I have no illusions of bring you back to God's Word. You have Murray to tell you what to believe, as long as you like what he says.

I have been replying so others who pass by may decide to read the Bible as if God's Word actually teaches what is written in its pages.

I know of two that have chosen Scripture over theory. That is two over a decade, but it is two that have not been carried away by philosophy.

Zaatar71 said:
When you describe godly men and mention them with Mormons and Jw's it is not a good example is it?

But none of those passages state what you wish they stated.

You cannot even interpret those passages to mean that Jesus experienced God's wrath. You added to God's Word and call it "interpretation".

Jesus did bear our sins bodily on the tree.
It is by His stripes we are healed.
He is the "Bishop" of our souls.
It is by His own blood He obtained our redemption.
He died for our sins.
He who knew no sin was made sin for us.
It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.
He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World (there is a lesson for you here)
He is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World.
He is the Propitiation for our sins.
He was made a curse for us.
It pleased the Lord to crush Him.

We all agree on what those passages say.

We disagree on what you add to those passages (what is not a different interpretation but an addition).

You still have not given even ONE passage that states Jesus experienced God's wrath.

For that you have to go to Calvin, not Christ.

That is why you run from Scripture to Presbyterian ministers. They give you what God will not - the faith you are seeking.

And that is perfectly fine. Each of us has to decide who we will follow.

Christians are never aware when they are carried away by vain philosophy. They only realize this when they return to God. But in the end, even that is a choice- a choice to be a disciples of Murray or of God. You can't have it both ways. God will do the separating. He will say "well done" or "I never knew you". It is an issue between you snd God, not me.

For me, God led me from this theory, this philosophy, at just the right time. I was in danger of following the same men rather than God. I cpuld not have convenced myself to reject the philosophy, so I do not pretend to think I can help you.

I made my decision to rest in His Word. You made your decision as well. Trust in your faith. Go where it leads you. That is between you and God. You have God's Word. You have Presbyterian ministers. Your choice, not mine.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

JonC said:
OK. That is the reason I continue our discussion as well. I have no illusions of bring you back to God's Word. You have Murray to tell you what to believe, as long as you like what he says.

I have been replying so others who pass by may decide to read the Bible as if God's Word actually teaches what is written in its pages.

I know of two that have chosen Scripture over theory. That is two over a decade, but it is two that have not been carried away by philosophy.

I have not left God;s word, my posts are all about the scripture. I think most agree with the posts offered by those men I quoted. I do not see anyone saying what you do, anywhere.. We will see as men consider the posts and weigh in. You have offered your ideas, and some healthy guidelines, so now those who read can consider the posts. Thanks for your input.

JonC said:
But none of those passages state what you wish they stated.

You cannot even interpret those passages to mean that Jesus experienced God's wrath. You added to God's Word and call it "interpretation".

Jesus did bear our sins bodily on the tree.
It is by His stripes we are healed.
He is the "Bishop" of our souls.
It is by His own blood He obtained our redemption.
He died for our sins.
He who knew no sin was made sin for us.
It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.
He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World (there is a lesson for you here)
He is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World.
He is the Propitiation for our sins.
He was made a curse for us.
It pleased the Lord to crush Him.

We all agree on what those passages say.

We disagree on what you add to those passages (what is not a different interpretation but an addition).

You still have not given even ONE passage that states Jesus experienced God's wrath.

For that you have to go to Calvin, not Christ.

JonC said:
But none of those passages state what you wish they stated.

You cannot even interpret those passages to mean that Jesus experienced God's wrath. You added to God's Word and call it "interpretation".

Jesus did bear our sins bodily on the tree.
It is by His stripes we are healed.
He is the "Bishop" of our souls.
It is by His own blood He obtained our redemption.
He died for our sins.
He who knew no sin was made sin for us.
It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
It is appointed man once to die and then the judgment.
He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World (there is a lesson for you here)
He is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World.
He is the Propitiation for our sins.
He was made a curse for us.
It pleased the Lord to crush Him.

We all agree on what those passages say.

We disagree on what you add to those passages (what is not a different interpretation but an addition).

You still have not given even ONE passage that states Jesus experienced God's wrath.

For that you have to go to Calvin, not Christ.

That is why you run from Scripture to Presbyterian ministers. They give you what God will not - the faith you are seeking.

No john, what this shows is you have no correct understanding of the whole Ot. Sacrificial system that Hebrews 9:23 says was the shadow of the reality of the cross. You show you do not understand the gospel of grace as taught by the Covenant death of the Lord Jesus, for his elect children. This latest posts removes any shadow of a doubt, that you have missed biblical truth, and do not understand the whole book of Hebrews. Other than that, you are doing fine, The passages teach exactly what i have posted. Like Bf said, I cannot enable you to see truth, I can just faithfully post it, in English!

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

Here is more of the solid teaching of Professor Murray;
Commentary on Romans 8:28–30
by John Murray
28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is the third ground of encouragement for the support of the children of God in the sufferings they are called upon to endure in this life. It consists in the consolation and assurance to be derived from the fact that all things work together for their good.

28 The version is probably correct in introducing these verses by the conjunction “and” rather than by “but”. The thought is not apparently adversative but transitional. When the apostle says “we know”, he is again intimating that the truth asserted is not one to be gainsaid. “To them that love God” is placed in the position of emphasis and characterizes those to whom the assurance belongs. They are described in
terms of their subjective attitude. In such terms no criterion could be more discriminating, for love to God is both the most elementary and the highest mark of being in the favour of God. “All things” may not be restricted, though undoubtedly the things contemplated are particularly those that fall within the compass of believers’ experience, especially suffering and adversity. Some of the ablest expositors maintain that “work together” does not mean that all things work in concert and cooperation with one another but that all things work in concert with the believer or with God.50 But it is unnecessary and perhaps arbitrary to depart from the more natural sense, namely, that in the benign and all-embracing plan of God the discrete elements all work together for good to them that love God. It is not to be supposed that they have any virtue or efficacy in themselves to work in concert for this end. Though not expressed, the ruling thought is that in the sovereign love and wisdom of God they are all made to converge upon and contribute to that goal. Many of the things comprised are evil in themselves and it is the marvel of God’s wisdom and grace that they, when taken in concert with the whole, are made to work for good. Not one detail works ultimately for evil to the people of God; in the end only good will be their lot. “To them that are called according to purpose” is a further definition of those to whom this assurance belongs. But the difference is significant. The former characterized them in terms of their subjective attitude, the latter in terms of God’s action exclusively. In the latter, therefore, there is an intimation of the reason why all things work for good—the action of God involved in their call is the guarantee that such will be the result.51 The call is the effectual call (cf. 1:7; vs. 30) which ushers into the fellowship of Christ (1 Cor. 1:9) and is indissolubly linked with predestination, on the one hand, and glorification, on the other. “According to purpose” refers without question to God’s determinate and eternal purpose (cf. 9:11; Eph. 1:11;3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). The last cited text is Paul’s own expansion of the thought summed up in the word “purpose”: “who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal”. Determinate efficacy characterizes the call because it is given in accordance with eternal purpose.
29 This verse unfolds in greater detail the elements included in the “purpose” of verse 28, and verses 29, 30 are a “continued confirmation”52 of the truth that all things work for good to those who are the called of God. There is no question but the apostle here introduces us to the eternal counsel of God as it pertains to the people of God and delineates for us its various aspects.
“Whom he foreknew”—few questions have provoked more difference of interpretation than that concerned with the meaning of God’s foreknowledge as referred to here. It is, of course, true that the word is used in the sense of “to know beforehand” (cf. Acts 26:5; 2 Pet. 3:17). As applied to God it could, therefore, refer to his eternal prevision, his foresight of all that would come to pass. It has been maintained by many expositors that this sense will have to be adopted here. Since, however, those whom God is said to have foreknown are distinguished from others and identified with those whom God also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, and since the expression “whom he foreknew” does not, on this view of its meaning, intimate any distinction by which the people of God could be differentiated, various ways of supplying this distinguishing element have been proposed. The most common is to suppose that what is in view is God’s foresight of faith.53 God foreknew who would believe; he foreknew them as his by faith. On this interpretation predestination is conceived of as conditioned upon this prevision of faith. Frequently, though not necessarily in all instances, this view of foreknowledge is considered to obviate the doctrine of unconditional election, and so dogmatic interest is often apparent in those who espouse it.
It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that “foreknew” means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3–8; 6:44, 45, 65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that “foreknew” refers to the foresight of faith.
It should be observed that the text says “whom he foreknew”; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression “whom he foreknew” contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some “qualifying adjunct”54 it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative
answer. Although the term “foreknow” is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word “know” in the usage of Scripture; “foreknow” merely adds the thought of “beforehand” to the word “know”. Many times in Scripture “know” has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition.55 It is used in a sense practically synonymous with “love”, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen. 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:23; 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 3:1). There is no reason why this import of the word “know” should not be applied to “foreknow” in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5, 6.)56 When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and “whom he foreknew” is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means “whom he set regard upon” or “whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight” and is virtually equivalent to “whom he foreloved”. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain—it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is he who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it. Foresight has too little of the active to do justice to the divine monergism upon which so much of the emphasis falls. It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is sovereign distinguishing love.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

Here is part2, for those who enjoy scriptural truth.
“He also foreordained.” One of the main objections urged against the foregoing view of “whom he foreknew” is that it would obliterate the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination.57 There is ostensible progression of thought expressed in “he also foreordained”. But there is no need to suppose that this progression is disturbed if “foreknew” is interpreted in the way propounded. “Foreknew” focuses attention upon the distinguishing love of God whereby the sons of God were elected. But it does not inform us of the destination to which those thus chosen are appointed. It is precisely that information that “he also foreordained” supplies, and it is by no means superfluous. When we consider the high destiny defined, “to be conformed to the image of his Son”, there is exhibited not only the dignity of this ordination but also the greatness of the love from which the appointment flows. God’s love is not passive emotion; it is active volition and it moves determinatively to nothing less than the highest goal conceivable for his adopted children, conformity to the image of the only-begotten Son. To allege that the pregnant force of “foreknew” does not leave room for the distinct enunciation of this high destiny is palpably without warrant or reason.58
“Conformed to the image of his Son” defines the destination to which the elect of God are appointed. The apostle has in view the conformity to Christ that will be realized when they will be glorified with Christ (vs. 17; cf. vss. 18, 19, 21, 23, 30), the final and complete conformity of resurrection glory (cf. 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). It is noteworthy that this should be described as conformity to the image of the Son; it enhances the marvel of the destination. The title “Son” has reference to Christ as the only-begotten (cf.vss. 3, 32) and therefore the unique and eternal Sonship is contemplated. The conformity cannot, of course, have in view conformity to him in that relation or capacity; the conformity embraces the transformation of the body of our humiliation to the likeness of the body of Christ’s glory (Phil. 3:21) and must therefore be conceived of as conformity to the image of the incarnate Son as glorified by his exaltation. Nevertheless, the glorified Christ does not cease to be the eternal Son and it is the eternal Son who is the glorified incarnate Son. Conformity to his image as incarnate and glorified, therefore, is conformity to the image of him who is the eternal and only-begotten Son.
“That he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” This specifies the final aim of the conformity just spoken of. We might well ask: What can be more final than the complete conformity of the sons of God to the image of Christ? It is this question that brings to the forefront the significance of this concluding clause. There is a final end that is more ultimate than the glorification of the people of God; it is that which is concerned with the preeminence of Christ. As Meyer correctly notes: “Paul contemplates Christ as the One, to whom the divine decree referred as to its final aim”.59 The term “firstborn” reflects on the priority and the supremacy of Christ (cf. Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6;Rev. 1:5).60 It is all the more striking that, when the unique and eternal Sonship is contemplated in the title “Son” and the priority and supremacy of Christ in the designation “firstborn”, the people of God should be classified with Christ as “brethren” (cf. Heb. 2:11, 12). His unique sonship and the fact that he is the firstborn guard Christ’s distinctiveness and preeminence, but it is among many brethren that his preeminence appears. This is another example of the intimacy of the relation existing between Christ and the people of God. The union
means also community and this community is here expressed as that of “brethren”. The fraternal relationship is subsumed under the ultimate end of the predestinating decree, and this means that the preeminence of Christ carries with it the eminence that belongs to the children of God. In other words, the unique dignity of the Son in his essential relation to the Father and in his messianic investiture enhances the marvel of the dignity bestowed upon the people of God. The Son is not ashamed to call them brethren (Heb. 2:11).
30 The two preceding verses deal with the eternal and pre-temporal counsel of God; the “purpose” of verse 28 is explicated in verse 29in terms of foreknowledge and predestination, the latter defining the ultimate goal of the counsel of salvation. Verse 30 introduces us to the realm of the temporal and indicates the actions by which the eternal counsel is brought to actual fruition in the children of God. Three actions are mentioned, calling, justification, and glorification. There is an unbreakable bond between these three actions themselves, on the one hand, and the two elements of the eternal counsel, on the other. All five elements are co-extensive. The sustained use of “also” and the repetition of the terms “foreordained”, “called”, “justified” in the three relative clauses in verse 30 signalize the denotative equation. Thus it is made abundantly evident that there cannot be one element without the others and that the three elements which are temporal flow by way of consequence from the eternal counsel, particularly from predestination because it stands in the closest logical relation to calling as the first in the sequence of temporal events.61
It is to be observed that calling, justification, and glorification are set forth as acts of God—“he called”, “he justified”, “he glorified”. The same divine monergism appears as in “he foreknew” and “he foreordained”. It is contrary to this emphasis to define any of these elements of the application of redemption in any other terms than those of divine action. It is true that all three affect us men, they draw our persons within their scope, and are of the deepest practical moment to us in the actual experience of salvation. But God alone is active in those events which are here mentioned and no activity on the part of men supplies any ingredient of their definition or contributes to their efficacy.62 For reasons which are rather obvious but which need not be developed we should infer that the sequence which the apostle follows represents the order in the application of redemption. The apostle enumerates only three elements. These, however, as the pivotal events in our actual salvation, serve the apostle’s purpose in delineating the divine plan of salvation from its fount in the love of God to its consummation in the glorification of the sons of God. Glorification, unlike calling and justification, belongs to the future. It would not be feasible in this context (cf. 5:2; vss. 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29) to regard it as other than the completion of the process of salvation and, though “glorified” is in the past tense, this is proleptic, intimating the certainty of its accomplishment.63
In extending encouragement and support to the people of God in their sufferings and adversities, groanings and infirmities, the apostle has reached this triumphant conclusion. He has shown how the present pilgrimage of the people of God falls into its place in that determinate and undefeatable plan of God that is bounded by two foci, the sovereign love of God in his eternal counsel and glorification with Christ in the age to come. It is when they apprehend by faith this panorama that stretches from the love of God before times eternal to the grand finale of the redemptive process that the sufferings of this present time are viewed in their true perspective and are seen, sub specie aeternitatis, to be but the circumstances of pilgrimage to, and preconditions of, a glory to be revealed so great in its weight that the tribulations are not worthy of comparison.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

Here are things that would help the poster john, but he chooses not to read them;
Study on Redemption Accomplished and Applied

By Dr. John Murray

Chapter I
Atonement Defined

What is an Atonement? Christ’s work of self sacrifice…In the Old Testament, the word is used frequently to translate the Hebrew word +;p'r , “to cover” The Greek word in the New Testament is katallagh , reconciliation

Boetner, “The two great objectives to be accomplished by Jesus Christ in His mission to this world were, first, the removal of the curse under which mankind labored as a result of the disobedience and fall, and second, the restoration of men to the image and fellowship of god. Both of these were essential in salvation. The work of Christ, in reconciling God and men we call the Atonement; and this doctrine, we believeve, lies at the very heart of the Christian system (Atonement, p. 9).”

The Ultimate Source of the Atonement

A. The Love of God - Murray (p. 9) No treatment of the atonement can be properly oriented that does not trace its source to the free and sovereign love of God. It is with this perspective that the best known text in the Bible provides us: "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" (John 3 : 16). Here we have an ultimate of divine revelation and therefore of human thought. Beyond this we cannot and dare not go.

B. A Distinguishing Love of God - Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 8:31-32 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? [32] He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; Ephes. 1:4-5 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love [5] He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

C. Murray - The love of God from which the atonement springs is not a distinction-less love; it is a love that elects and predestinates. God was pleased to set his invincible and everlasting love upon a count-less multitude and it is the determinate purpose of this love that the atonement secures.

D. Morton Smith (Systematic Theology, vols I & II) - In other words, we are saying that the love within the Trinity is a part of his necessary being, but that he is sovereign in the exercise of that love beyond his inner being. That he should set his love upon hell–deserving sinners is dependent upon his sovereign good pleasure. There is no necessity that he do so, other than his own sovereign will

E. Murray, The love of God is the cause or source of the atonement. But this does not answer the question as to the reason or necessity What is the reason why the love of God should take such a way of realizing its end and fulfilling its purpose? Why, we, are compelled to ask, the sacrifice of the Son of God, why the blood of the Lord of glory?…. Why did God become man Why, having become man, did he die? Why, having die' did he die the accursed death of the cross? This is the question of the necessity of the atonement? (p. 11).”

F. Smith, “Anselm has stated the question in its classic form: “For what necessity and for what reason did God, since he is omnipotent, take upon himself the humiliation and weakness of human nature in order to its restoration?”

Possible Answers To the Question of the Necessity of the Atonement

Actually, there are more than two possible answers to the reason or necessity for the atonement. Murray focuses on two:

A. Hypothetical Necessity - maintains that God could have forgiven sin and saved his elect without atonement or satisfaction - other means were open to God whom all things are possible. But the way of the vicarious sacrifice of the Son of God was the way which God in grace and sovereign wisdom chose because this is the way which the greatest number of advantages concur and the way in which grace is more marvelously exhibited. So, while God could save without an atonement, yet, in accordance with his sovereign decree, he actually does not.

B. Consequent Absolute Necessity - The word "consequent" in this designation points to the fact that God's will or decree to save any is of free and sovereign grace. To save lost men was not of absolute necessity but of the sovereign good pleasure of God. The terms '4absolute necessity," however, indicate that God, having elected some to everlasting ufe out of his mere good pleasure, was under the necessity of accomplishing this purpose through the sacrifice of his own Son, a necessity arising from the perfections of his own nature.

C. Murray, and traditional Protestantism holds to the Consequent Absolute Necessity view. The primary reason is that there are things that God can not do according to his nature…

see pt2

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

Scriptures Supporting Consequent Absolute Necessiry

Hebrews 2:10, 17

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Smith writes, “It might be taken as simply referring to the appropriateness of the suffering of Christ in bringing many sons to glory, but on the basis of the text itself it appears to be stronger. “It became” or “it was becoming” that he should do this. The idea of Divine propriety is expressed by the term. The stronger idea is seen in Matt. 3:15“It becometh (prepon estin ) us to fulfill all righteousness.” Not to have fulfilled all righteousness would have violated the commission of both Jesus and John. They were under obligation so to do.”

2. John 3:14-16 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; [15] that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.

[16] "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Murray - There are passages, such as John 3 : 14-16, which rather definitely suggest that the alternative to the giving of God's only-begotten Son and his being lifted up on the accursed tree is the eternal perdition of the lost.”

3. Hebrews 9:9-14

which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, [10] since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

[11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; [12] and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. [13] For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, [14] how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:23

Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Murray - Such finality, perfection, and efficacy are necessitated by the gravity of sin, and sin must be effectively removed if salvation is to be realized It is this consideration that gives such strength to the necessity, spoken of in 9 :23 to the effect that while the patterns of things in the heavenlies should be purified with the blood of goats and calves, the heavenly things themselves should he purified by the blood of none other than the Son. In other words, there is stated to be a necessity that can be met by nothing less than the blood of Jesus. But the blood of Jesus is blood that has the requisite efficacy and virtue only by reason of the fact that he who is the Son, the effulgence of the Father's glory arid the express image of his substance, became himself also partaker of flesh and blood and thus was able by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified. It is surely not an unwarranted inference to conclude that the thought here presented is that only such a person, offering such a sacrifice, could have dealt with sin so as to remove it and could have made such purification as would secure for the many sons to be brought to glory access into the very holiest of the divine presence. And this is but saying that the blood-shedding of Jesus was necessary to the ends contemplated and secured.

4. Galatians 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

Murray - A salvation from sin divorced from justification is an impossibility and justification of sinners without the God-righteousness of the Redeemer is unthinkable… What Paul is insisting upon is that if justification could have been secured by any other method than that of faith in Christ, by that method it would have been.

5. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Murray - The cross of Christ is the supreme demonstration of the love of God (Rom. 5 :8; I John 4: io). The supreme character of the demonstration resides in the extreme costliness of the sacrifice rendered…. We must ask, however would the cross of Christ be a supreme exhibition of love if there were no necessity for such costliness? Is it not so that the only inference on the basis of which the cross of Christ can be commended to us as the supreme exhibition of divine love is that the exigencies provided for required nothing less than the sacrifice of the Son of God?

Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt."

6. Sin must be punished by God’s justice… Deut. 27:26 'Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

Romans 3:21-26 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, [22] even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; [25] whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; [26] for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Murray - It is this inviolable sanctity of God's law, the immutable dictate of holiness and the unflinching demand of justice, that makes mandatory the conclusion that salvation from sin without expiation and propitiation is inconceivable. It is this principle that explains the sacrifice of the Lord of glory, the agony of Gethsemane, and the abandonment of the accursed tree. It is this principle that undergirds the great truth that God is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. For in the work of Christ the dictates of holiness and the demands of justice have been fully vindicated. God set him forth to be a propitiation to declare his righteousness.

Smith - . If there is to be salvation, this wrath must be removed. The only provision for the removal of the wrath is propitiation. This is pointed out in Rom. 3:25–26, where it is said that propitiation is the means by which God is able to be both Just and the Justifier of sinners. To posit only a hypothetical necessity for the atonement is to fail to see the intrinsic necessity of removal of the wrath of God as it is revealed against all unrighteousness.

Boettner, (p. 39), “Mohammedanism holds that God can pardon whom He will, and on whatever grounds He pleases. The immeasurable superiority of Christian theology is evidenced by its clear and emphatic demand that he justice and holiness of god must be maintained and that the affront which has been offered to it by human sin shall not go unpunished. The tendency in some modern systems of theology is to merge holiness and love and to assume that God can forgive sin without an atonement. But such an easy going optimism either does not know what the holiness of God involves, or fails utterly to understand the heinous nature of sin.
CONCLUSION

No other way but through the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus…

These teachings make short work of the supposed objections.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

To completely crush the weak objections, we offer more from Professor Murray, enjoy!

Study on Redemption Accomplished and Applied

By Dr. John Murray

Chapter 2 - The Nature of the Atonement

I. THE COMPREHENSIVE CATEGORY OF THE ATONEMENT

Murray - p. 19, “The Scripture regards the work of Christ as one of obedience and uses this term, or the concept that it designates, with sufficient frequency to warrant the conclusion that obedience is generic and therefore embracive enough to be viewed as the unifying or integrating principle.”

· John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

· Romans 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

· Hebrews 5:8-9 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. [9] And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

Two Distinct Aspects of Obedience

Active and Passive Obedience

a. Murray, p. 20, “The term "passive obedience" does not mean that in anything Christ did was he passive, the involuntary victim of obedience imposed upon him”

b. Murray, p. 21, “Neither are we to suppose that we can allocate certain phases or acts of our Lord's life on earth to the active obedience and certain other phases and acts to the passive obedience.”

c. Murray, p. 21 The real use and purpose of the formula is to emphasize the two distinct aspects of our Lord's vicarious obedience. The truth expressed rests upon the recognition that the law of God has both penal sanctions and positive demands.”

d. Murray, pp. 21-22, “In other words, he took care of the guilt of sin and perfectly fulfilled the demands of righteousness. He perfectly met both the penal and the perceptive requirements of God's law. The passive obedience refers to the former and the active obedience to the latter. Christ’s obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification.

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Murray, p. 23, “It was not, of course, a perfecting that required the sanctification from sin to holiness. He was always holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. But there was the perfecting of development and growth in the course and path of his obedience- he learned obedience. The heart and mind and will of our Lord had been moulded-shall we not say forged ?-in the furnace of temptation and suffering. And it was in virtue of what he had learned in that experience of temptation and suffering that he was able, at the climactic point fixed by the arrangements of infallible wisdom and everlasting love, to be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. It was only as having learned obedience in the path of inerrant and sinless discharge of the Father's will that his heart and mind and will were framed to the point of being able freely and voluntarily to yield up his life in death upon the accursed tree.”

II. SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF THE ATONEMENT

A. Sacrifice - Christ’s work is, steeped in the New Testament, in the context of the Old Testament sacrificial system.

· Murray, p. 25, “. Sin involves a certain liability, a liability arising from the holiness of God, on the one hand, and the gravity of sin as the contradiction of that holiness, on the other. The sacrifice was the divinely instituted provision whereby the sin might be covered and the liability to divine wrath and curse removed. The Old Testament worshipper when he brought his oblation to the altar substituted an animal victim in his place. In laying his hands upon the head of the offering there was transferred symbolically to the offering the sin and liability of the offerer.”

· These rituals were shadows and types - pictures of the coming Saviour

· Not every offering of the Levitical system was literally fulfilled…But many were.

· Day of Atonement - Hebrews 9:6-15;

· The Sin Offering - Hebrews 13:10-13

· Murray, p. 27, “In this connection we must also keep in view what we have reflected on already that the Levitical sacrifices were patterned after the heavenly exemplar, after what the epistle to the He-brews calls "the heavenly things." The bloody offerings of the Mosaic ritual were patterns of the grand offerings of Christ himself by which the things in the heavens were purified (Heb. 9 :23).

· Hebrews 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

· Old Testament sacrifices were merely copies, they were limited in use, Christ is the perfect sacrifice…Murray, p. 28, “It is in virtue of his priestly office and in pursuance of his priestly function that he makes atonement for sin. He indeed was the lamb slain, but he was also the priest that offered himself as the lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. It is this amazing conjuncture that the union in him of priestly office and peculiar offering evinces.”

B. Propitiation - The reason that this word is not used more in the New Testament is simply because the word had become so identified with the ritual

· Romans 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

· Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

· Murray, p. 30, “But what does propitiation mean? In the Hebrew of the Old Testament it is expressed by a word which means to 4'cover." In connection with this covering there are, in particular, three things to be noted:

(1) it is in reference t~ sin that the covering takes place;

(2) the effect of this covering is cleansing and forgiveness,

(3) it is before the Lord that both the covering and its effect take place (cf. especially Lev. 4 :10: 17; i6 :30). This means that sin creates a situation in relation to the Lord, a situation that makes the covering necessary

· Murray, p. 30, “To propitiate means to "placate," "pacify," "appease," "conciliate." And it is this idea that is applied to the atonement accomplished by Christ.

· Mythical ideas of atonement - God has an internal conflict - The Son winning over the angry Father

(4) Love and propitious are not necessarily opposites.

(5) Propitiation is not turning wrath into love. 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

(6) Propitiation does not detract from the love and mercy of god.

see pt2

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

C. Reconciliation - Focus is upon restoring a relationship This applies to a relationship of enmity and alienation.

· Murray, p. 33 “We might be ready to think that the reconciliation terminates not only God's holy enmity against us but upon our un holy enmity towards him. Our English word would quite readily create this impression. This notion, furthermore, would appear to be supported by the usage of the New Testament itself. It is never said in so many words that God is reconciled to us but rather that we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5 :20).”

· Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

· 2 Cor. 5:20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

· Murray argues that God’s enmity is always primary in view in the matter of reconciliation. EXAMPLES

(1) Matthew 5:23-24 "If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, [24] leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

a. The factor that is given as the reason for the interruption in the act of worship is simply that there is alienation.

b. Whether the worshipper has done something to wrong the other or the brother is the one who has been wronged is not the point.

c. The worshipper is to be reconciled to his brother by removing the ground of estrangement.

· Murray, p. 36, “It is all-important to recognize, therefore, that what the worshipper takes into account in the act of reconciliation is the grievance entertained by the brother; it is the frame of mind of the person to whom he is reconciled that he is to consider and not any enmity which he himself entertains. And, if we use the word "enmity," it is the enmity on the part of the offended brother that is brought into the forefront of thought and consideration. In other words, it is the "against" entertained by the offended brother that the reconciliation has in view; the reconciliation effects the removal of this "against."This passage then provides us with a most instructive lesson regarding the meaning of "be reconciled"; it shows that this expression, in this instance at least, focuses thought and consideration not upon the enmity of the person who is said to be reconciled but upon the alienation in the mind of the person with whom the reconciliation is made. And, if the meaning which obtains in this passage is that which holds in connection with our reconciliation to God through the death of Christ, then what is thrust into the foreground when we are said to be reconciled to God is the alienation of God from us, the holy enmity on the part of God by which we are alienated from him. The reconciliation as action would be the removal of the ground of God's alienation from us; the reconciliation as result would be the harmonious and peaceful relation established because the ground of God's alienation from us had been removed.

· The point that Murray is making is that in reconciliation, the duty is to remove the ground of alienation regardless of whether you are offended or the other person. God was offended but he removed the enmity.

· I Corinthians 7:11 gives us another illustration of reconciliation taking place regardless of the experience of subjective enmity in marriage.

· Romans 11:15 gives us another illustration involving Israel and the church.
Murray, p. 38, “When we proceed to deal with the passages which directly concern the work of reconciliation wrought by Christ, it is necessary for us to bear in mind that reconciliation in these other instances does not refer to the putting away of the subjective enmity in the heart of the person said to be reconciled but to the alienation on the part of the person to whom we are said to be reconciled. We shall see how it is this notion that applies to the reconciliation accomplished by Christ. The reconciliation deals with the alienation of God from us on account of our sin; by taking away sin reconciliation removes the ground of this alienation, and peace with God is the effect. The two passages which we shall consider are Romans 5 : 8-11; 2 Corinthians 5: 18-21.

· see pt3

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

pt3;
Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. [10] For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. [11] And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

(1) We are reconciled to God through the work of Christ

(2) The words “reconciled to God through the death of his son (verse 10) are parallel to the words “justified now in his blood (verse 9). Justification is forensic, which indicates that reconciliation must also be viewed as forensic.

(3) We receive this reconciliation as a gift. Clearly, its is God’s enmity that has been dealt with by the work of Christ, not our own.

(4) We were enemies in the sight of God…this is the only way to understand the work of Christ.

· 2 Cor. 5:18-21 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, [19] 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. [20] Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. [21] He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

(5) Reconciliation is a work of God…not of human action

(6) Reconciliation is a finished work. The tenses in verses i8, 19, 21 put this beyond doubt. It is not a work being continuously wrought by God; it is something accomplished in the past. God is not only the sole agent but also the agent of action already perfected.

(7) This clearly points us to the vicarious sin-bearing of Christ as that which brought the reconciliation into being. This forensic character of the reconciliation is also borne out in verse 19 where "not reckoning to them their trespasses" is related to the reconciling of the world as the explanation of that in which the reconciliation consists or as the consequence in which it issues. In either case reconciliation has its affinities with the non-imputation of trespasses rather than with any subjective operation.

(8) When reconciliation is preached, it is done so with the view that whatever transformation takes place as an effect of what God has already accomplished through Christ.

(9) “Be reconciled to God” It means: be no longer in a state of alienation from God but enter rather into the relation of favor and peace established by the reconciliatory work of Christ. Take advantage of the grace of God and enter into this status of peace with God through our Lord Jesus Chris

Murray concludes, (p. 42), “.The reconciliation of which the Scripture speaks, as accomplished by the death of Christ, contemplates, therefore, the relation of God to us. It presupposes a relation of alienation and it effects a relation of favor and peace. This new relation is constituted by the removal of the ground for the alienation. The ground is sin and guilt. The removal is wrought in the vicarious work of Christ, when he was made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Christ took upon himself the sin and guilt, the condemnation and the curse of those on whose behalf he died. This is the epitome of divine grace and love. It is God's own provision and

it is his accomplishment. God himself in his own Son has removed the ground of offense and we receive the reconciliation.”

D. Redemption - The idea of redemption must not be reduced to the general notion of deliverance. The language of redemption is the language of purchase and more specifically of ransom. And ransom is the securing of a release by the payment of a price…..(I) that the work he came into the world to accomplish is a work of ransom, (2) that the giving of his life was the ransom price, and (3) that this ransom was substitutionary in its nature.

Presupposes some kind of bondage that through Christ we were freed from…What are we freed from:

LAW - Not free from the obligation to keep God’s laws (love God and our neighbor)

(1) Free from the curse of the law- Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--

(2) Free from the ceremonial laws - Galatians 3:23-24 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. [24] Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Murray p. 45, “In him (Christ) the Mosaic law realized its purpose, and its meaning received in him its permanent validity and embodiment. Consequently he redeemed from the relative and provisional bondage of which the Mosaic economy was the instrument

(3) Free from the law of works -Murray, p. 45, “Christ has redeemed us from the necessity of keeping the law as the condition of our justification and acceptance with Cod. Without such redemption there could be no justification and no salvation. It is the obedience of Christ himself that has secured this release.”

SIN free from the power sin and of guilt

Romans 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Ephes. 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Murray, p. 47, “The ransom utterances of our Lord (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10 :45) show beyond question that he interpreted the purpose of his coming into the world in terms of substitutionary ransom and that this ransom was nothing less than the giving of his life. And, in the usage of the New Testament, the giving of his life is the same as the shedding of his blood. Redemption, there-fore, in our Lord's view consisted in substitutionary blood-shedding or blood-shedding in the room and stead of many with the end in view of thereby purchasing to himself the many on whose behalf he gave his life a ransom.”

SPECIAL ASPECTS

SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION -Murray p. 48) Redemption from the power of sin is the triumphant aspect of redemption… It is that not only is Christ regarded as having died for the believer but the believer is represented as having died in Christ and as having been raised up with him to newness of life. This is the result of union with Christ. For by this union Christ is not only united to those who have been given to him but they are united with him. Hence not only did Christ die for them but they died in him and rose with him (c5. Rom. 6:1-10; 2 Cor.5:14, Eph. 2 : 1-7; Col. 3 : 1-4; I Pet. 4: I, 2).

Ephes. 2:1-7 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, [2] in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. [3] Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. [4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), [6] and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, [7] in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

DESTROYING THE POWER OF SATAN Col. 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

This is what real scholarship looks like!

·

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

Study on Redemption Accomplished and Applied

By Dr. John Murray

Chapter 3 - The Perfection of the Atonement

In this chapter Dr. Murray is teaching us the degree to which Christ’s work, his atonement, was complete. How much did the work of Christ accomplish? To what degree does his work of active and passive obedience on behalf of sinners accomplish their salvation? Did the work of Jesus complete redemption?

I. CONTRASTING SYSTEMS

Roman Catholicism - teaches an incomplete atonement. The believer is left in a state in which it is impossible to have an assurance of salvation.

Murray, 51 - According to Romish theology, all past sins both as respects their eternal and temporal punishment are blotted out in baptism and also the eternal punishment of the future sins of the faithful. But for the temporal punishment of post-baptismal sins the faithful must make satisfaction either in this life or in purgatory.

Historic Protestantism - teaches that the atonement was complete and that human effort or good works can never contribute to acceptance with God. God may chastise us, but our bearing the rod of divine displeasure does not advance our justification.

Murray, p. 51, If we once allow the notion of human satisfaction to intrude itself in our construction of justification or sanctification then we have polluted the river the streams whereof make glad the city of God. And the gravest perversion that it entails is that it robs the Redeemer of the glory of his once4or-all accomplishmentt.

· Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

· Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

II. FEATURES OF CHRIST’S FINISHED WORK

A. The Historic Objectivity - The atonement took place in actual history. It happened at a particular point in time and space. The atonement is an event having reality independent of the mind or experience. It has occurred. Therefore, it can not be repeated, or does not happen repeatedly. For example, Christ is not re-sacrificed in the Roman Catholic mass.

1. Murray, p. 53, “.The historical conditioning and locating of events in time cannot be erased nor their significance under-estimated. And what is true of the event of the incarnation is true also of the redemption wrought. Both are historically located and neither is suprahistorical or contemporary.

2. Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, [5] in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

B. The Finality - The atonement is a completed work, never again to be repeated and is unrepeatable. The New Testament stresses the historical uniqueness of Christ’s finished work. What our savior did can never again be repeated.

1. Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

2. Hebrews 9:12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

3. Hebrews 9:25-28 nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own. [26] Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. [27] And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, [28] so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

C. The Uniqueness - No other person could make the atonement but Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was totally matchless, singular in its accomplishment, truly one of a kind.

1. Murray, p. 56, “The Scripture representation is that the Son of God incarnate and he alone, to the exclusion of the Father and Spirit in the realm of the divine, to the exclusion of angels and men in the created order, gave himself a sacrifice to redeem us to God by his blood. From whatever angle we look upon his sacrifice we find its uniqueness to be as inviolable as the uniqueness of his person, of his mission, and of his office. Who is God-man but he alone? Who is great high priest to offer such sacrifice but he alone? Who shed such vicarious blood but he alone? Who entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, but he alone?”

2. Murray quoting Hugh Martin, pp 57, “It is one solitary, matchless, Divine transaction-never to be repeated, never to be equalled, never to be approached. It was the splendid and unexpected device of Divine wisdom, which in its disclosure flooded the minds of angels with the knowledge of God. It was the free counsel of the good pleasure of God's will. It was the sovereign appointment of His grace and love. We are robbed of the sovereign love of God by the notion that vicarious sacrifice is the 'law of being'."

D. The Intrinsic Efficacy - Christ’s work was a full satisfaction of the justice of God on behalf of the elect. Christ made penal satisfaction by suffering the very penalty demanded by the law of sinners.

1. WCF (8:v) The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.

2. Murray, pp 57-58, The atonement is the provision of the Father's love and grace. But there is equal need for remembering that the work wrought by Christ was in itself intrinsically adequate to meet all the exigencies created by our sin and all the demands of God's holiness and justice. Christ discharged the debt of sin. He bore our sins and purged them. He did not make a token payment which God accepts in place of the whole. Our debts are not canceled; they are liquidated. Christ procured redemption and therefore he secured it. He met in himself and swallowed up the full toll of divine condemnation and judgment against sin. He wrought righteousness which is the proper ground of complete justification and the title to everlasting life.

3. Romans 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

4. Romans 5:21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

5. Ephes. 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

6. Hebrews 5:9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,

7. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

8. 1 John 4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

Study on Redemption Accomplished and Applied

By Dr. John Murray

Part II - Chapters 1-2

The Order of Application - Chapter 1

I. INTRODUCTION Murray is dealing with the order in which redemption is applied to the believer though a series of acts. Theologians sometimes call this the ordo salutis or order of salvation. Berkhof defines the term thus, The process by which the work of salvation wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners. It aims at describing their logical order , their inter-relatedness and the various movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption. There is obviously an order in the application of salvation.

1. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Seeing and entering into the kingdom of God must come after new birth or regeneration.

2. John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, It is necessary to receive Christ before one can become a child of God.

3. Ephes. 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Sealing follows hearing the Word and believing.

Murray, p. 82, These texts, however, have not brought us very far in discovering what the order of arrangement is in connection with a good many of the actions which are comprised in the application of redemption. They have established a few things, indeed, but only a few. When we give a fuller enumeration of the several steps or aspects-calling, regeneration, conversion, faith, repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance. glorification-we can see that sever~ questions remain undetermined Which is prior, calling or justification? Is faith prior to justification or vice versa? Does regeneration come before calling?

II. A SPECIAL PASSAGE Romans 8:30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

1. Here is a chain of events.

a. Verse 28 “called according to purpose (plan) implies a pattern or sequence of events.

b. Verse 29 There is progression from foreknow to predestinate

c. Verses 29-30 There is a chain from foreknowledge to glorification

d. There is an order here which must be seen

Murray, p. 84, We shall have to conclude that, since there are so many indications of intended order in this passage as a whole, the order which Paul follows in reference to calling and justification must be intended as the order of logical arrangement and progression. It would violate every relevant consideration to think otherwise. Consequently we must infer that Romans 8:30 provides us with a broad outline of the order in the application of redemption and that that order is: calling, justification, glorification.

III. Defining The Order of Salvation

1. The question of the relation of faith to justification

a. Faith is prior to justification

·Romans 3:26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

·Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

·Romans 5:1 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

·Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

Murray, p. 85 God justifies the ungodly who believe in Jesus, in a word, believers. And that is simply to say that faith is presupposed in justification, is the precondition of justification, not because we are justified on the ground of faith or for the reason that we are justified because of faith but only for the reason that faith is God's appointed instrument through which he dispenses this grace.

We are now in a position to give the following, slightly enlarged outline of the order in the application of redemption-calling, faith, justification, glorification

2. A controversial question: is regeneration prior to faith?

· John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Murray, p. 86 Surely seeing the kingdom of God is the act of faith and, if so, such faith is impossible without regeneration. Hence regeneration must be prior to faith. We can affirm then on these grounds that the order is regeneration, faith, justification.

· John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Murray, p. 87 With all these considerations in view, the order in the application of redemption is found to be calling. regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, glorification. When this order is carefully weighed we find that there is a logic which evinces and brings into clear focus the governing principle of salvation in all of its aspects, the grace of God in its sovereignty and efficacy. Salvation is of the Lord in its application as well as in its conception and accomplishment.

Chapter 2 - Effectual Calling

I. Universal Calling - A call to all mankind without distinction

1. Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

II. An Effectual Call - (J.I. Packer)'God summoning men by His Word and laying hold of them by His power to play a part in and enjoy the benefits of His gracious redemptive purposes.'

1. God is the Author - 1 Cor. 1:9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

2. God the Father specifically - 1 John 3:1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

3. The Nature - Murray, p. 91 We do not ordinarily associate with the word "summons" the efficacy that is requisite for compliance with that summons. A summons issued by a court does not of itself empower us to appear in court. It gives us warrant to appear and it requires us to appear but it does not actually bring us into court. That depends on our strength and will. Or, perchance, it depends on the force applied by the executive officers if we are apprehended and compelled to appear. It is wholly otherwise with God's summons. The summons is invested with the efficacy by which we are delivered to the destination intended-we are effectively ushered into the fellowship of Christ.

a. Romans 4:17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

b. Holy and heavenly –

4. The Pattern -

a. Determinate purpose - God did this deliberately not haphazardly.

b. Eternal

c. In Christ the pattern is devised.. 2 Tim. 1:9 who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

5. The Priority -

a. We are united to Christ by this calling (I Cor 1:9)

b. A sovereign act of God alone…

c. Calling the initial act of salvation

d. Calling is according to God’s eternal purpose.

Zaatar71 · Sep 15, 2025

A God called man makes short work of the weak objections to truth. We can see how a faithful teacher goes line upon line exegeting truth.
No one answers because they cannot begin to enter in to the massive amounts of truth speaking of so great a salvation that we have, In the Lord Jesus Christ.

JonC · Sep 16, 2025

Zaatar71 said:
No john, what this shows is you have no correct understanding of the whole Ot. Sacrificial system that Hebrews 9:23 says was the shadow of the reality of the cross. You show you do not understand the gospel of grace as taught by the Covenant death of the Lord Jesus, for his elect children. This latest posts removes any shadow of a doubt, that you have missed biblical truth, and do not understand the whole book of Hebrews. Other than that, you are doing fine, The passages teach exactly what i have posted. Like Bf said, I cannot enable you to see truth, I can just faithfully post it, in English!

No, it shows you are blind to "what is written" in Scripture.

You say one thing but post passages that do not actually support what you say.

Why?

Because you have decided to follow men's opinion rather than God's Word.

A Jehovah Witness will do the same. They will give you a verse abd then tell you "what it really means".

Have you ever considered that God's Word means what God said?

What if Scripture really teaches what is recorded in its text?

@Zaatar71

Thank you for the conversation. I realized you do not know what I believe because you never asked. You were more interested in advocating for your position. That is fine.

We disagree on tge problem of sin, on redemotion, on the readon Christ came, on salvation, on the purposes of God. I believe it is fair to say that we believe a different gospel.

I was once like you (for most of my life) in believing theory over Scripture (although I did not take the time to realize this back then). We all have our own understandings and vein philosophies in this life. But we need to take care that we are not leaning on our understanding (or the understandings of other men), and not being carried away by vain philosophy lest we are one who truely never believed.

I am not saying that penal substitution theorists are not Chriatians (I was both at one time). But it depends on how one holds that theory, if they have been carried away from the faith (never truely saved) or simply holds the theory with a grain of salt.

My purpose here was to point you to the Lighthouse in hopes you would loosen your grip on the rudder and see its glow. I do understand the appeal of an "easy-believism" faith. It is in human nature. We do not want a faith that makes demands of us. I pray you reverse your course while there is time. But that is your choice to make.

I can tell you, having released the rudder and grasped the plow, that God meets the demands He makes upon those of us who believe.

My intention was simply to let you know that God's Word stands while man's philosophy will fail. On that day many will call out to Jesus as their Savior only to hear "I never knew you". I do not wish that on anybody. Be careful not to be carried away by the philosophy and theories you hold.

That is all I really have to say to you. I cannot discuss God's Word with you because to you it is foolishness. I have no interest in revisiting the writings of Murray, or any other men. I spent my time there, but that time has passed. I turned back to God's Word while time remained.

In the future, if you decide to return to Scripture (I assume you started there prior to discovering the theories you hold and men who disciples you through their writings) you are welcome to PM me sbd we can enter a discussion of God's Word.

Until then, it is not profitable or appropriate for this discussion to continue, as it woukd be wrong for me to cast pearls in that direction.

I wish the best for you. Enjoy this board and your discussions with other members. I pointed you back to God's Word. You decide where you go from here. Leave me out of your discussions.

Peace.

Brightfame52 said:
You going all over the place you just don't understand propitiation

No, I understand propitiation. It is something that turns aside wrath or anger.

You miss what I was saying.

You are not talking about propitiation but about sins being propitiated.

Read the verse and pay attention to the tenses of the words.

Christ Himself is the Propitiation.
Men have their sins propitiated.
In Him we escape the wrath to come.

JonC · Sep 16, 2025

Brightfame52 said:
By His Death those He died for escape the wrath to come. If He did not die for you then you will not escape the wrath to come

I am not saying your doctrine is wrong (or right, for that matter).

You are talking about propitiation in general.

I am talking about 1 Jn 2:2.

If we replace what John is saying in the verse, even with something that is true, then we miss what John is saying.

The "so" in John 3:16 means "thusly", or "in this way". God loved the World in this way, He sent His Son.
People have confused the "so" with a quality- God loved the World so much...

It is not false to speak of God's great love. BUT when we misinteroret the "so" as a quality we miss what John is saying even though what we say is true.

Same with 1 Jn 2:2.

Verse 1 telks us that if we sin Jesus is our Advocate.
Verse 2 identifies Jesus Himself as the Propitiation.

Brightfame52 said:
Even in John 3:16 the world God so loved He saved it through Christ read verse 17 so that limits the scope of who the world is, it can't be those who are lost under the wrath of God.

And God's great love actually saved them He so loved read Ephesians 2:4-5 what does it say about His great love?

I think you may have missed my point.

If you read "so" in John 3:16 as "so much" you end up with a truth that is stated in other verses but you miss what John 3:16 means.

I have not argued against the fact rhat Christ gave His life for His sheep.

I am simply saying that 1 Jn 2:2 is saying something you are missing - not that your overall theology is wrong (or right).

Even if you read something that is biblical, that is true and correct doctrine, into a verse you would be missing what that verse is actually saying. What is said may be just as impirtant as the truth read into the passage.

Brightfame52 said:
You far out friend.

Lol....I know you are just messing around, and it is fun (I know you are not that illiterate).

You know how that sentence actually reads. You just do not want to admit it on the public forum.

I do not really know if it is pride, that you simply can't admit you read into the passage, courage that you do not mind looking stupid, ignorance that you struggle with the structure of the English language, or thst you (like me) are just passing time.

But anybody reading this, who is familiar with sentence structure, knows that "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" is calling Jesus Christ the Propitiation for our sins.

Or expiation, or atoning sacrifice....depending on interpretation. But it is obvious that John is identifying Jesus as the ἱλασμός.

Brightfame52 said:
Well you are very good sending out a barrage of insults

No, I assumed that you were joking (that is what I said) and listed other possible options.

I know that you realize "He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins" is saying "Jesus Christ is the Propitiation for our sins". You were just denying that, disagreeing, in fun.

JesusFan · Sep 16, 2025

JonC said:
The mean of the word "propitiation is to turn aside or avoid something, particularly wrath or anger. I think this is evident in that it is in Christ we "escape the wrath to come". Jesus IS the Propitiation for the sins of the Wirld (the ONLY Propitiation).

But it is one thing to speak of propitiation and another entirely to speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Penal Substitution Theory does not focus on propitiation but on a way the theory thinks wrath is turned from the wicked (by turning it to God's "Righteous One").

It would be an error to ignore Christ as the Propitiation for our sins, but it would be an equally abhorrent error to twist Scripture to fit the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

You find the biblical concept of the Lamb of God taking upon himself as our sin bearer the wrath and condemnation due to all of us then as being abhorrent and pagan?

JonC said:
But what about truth?

Here you offer Albert Maryin and John Murray vs God's Word. Some will offer the Book of Mormon vs God's Word. Others Elken White vs God's Word.

We are Christians. Why the distain for Scripture? If Penal Substitution Theory were important and correct would it not be in "what is written???

Its in the bible, see isaiah 53, Romans, Galatians, etc

JonC said:
I have offered Scripture. You simply did not recognize it as Scripture (I just used quotation marks).

That said, I have not stated my view.....all I stated of my belief was that God is faithful to forgive those who repent (Ezekiel 18, Acts 3, 1 John 1, 2 Peter 3, . . .).

You have without any Scripture supporting your philosophy. You provided verses but then went on to state your theory which is unrelated to the verses you provided.

Bit I will give you a chance -

Provide a verse stating Jesus died instead of us.
Provide a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.
Provide a verse stating that God cannot forgive sins based on repentance and belief.

I know you can find those things in the writings of the men you follow, but I do not recognize those men as the authority for my faith. Use the Bible.

Yes, I know both English and Greek. In both cases, both speak of Chriat.

While I studied Greek at the graduate level, I am mot sure you have. So let's just look at the English.

Here is the passage in question:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Now, in the English language (and the Grerk) the topic is Christ as the Propitiation, not those who benefit from the propitiation. You should have picked up on this with the first verse (we have an Advocate, who IS the Propitiation for sins).

I get that English may be your second language. If so, I encourage you to get a transkation in your own language.

What you did was read into the passage by making assumptions. You want it to say something ir dies not say, so you pretend it does.

If English is your first language, and you simply struggle with the fundamental parts of the language (nouns, verbs, etc) then take the time to diagram sentences. Identify the subject, the adverbs, etc. It may help you to write them out (we had to in school).

If you the your time, diagram the sentences, identify the subject, etc. it may help you keep from making such elementary mistakes.

No, you are confused. The Apostolic Church is the church that existed during the time of the Apostles. They taught what was written in Scripture. The theories you are talking about came much later.

Anselm developed Substitution Theory which was focused on Jedus restoring the honor man robbed of God. Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory, replacing honor with merit.

Aquinas want a bit more in detail. Until Aquinas nobody entertained the idea that Jesus could be punished instead of sinners. Aquinas developed a system where (he believed) an innocent person could justly be punished insteadbof a guilty person provided both parties were willing and the punishment was not the punishment due the crime committed.

Calvin (a lawyer by education) reformed Aquinas' theory by replacing merit with justice, and satisfactory punishment with simple punishment.

All three were based on Augustines error. Augustine developed what became the Catholic doctrine of sin. But this was based on the Vulgate which mistranslated "eph hō" as "in quo".

History is important. As you demonstrate with your ignorance of history (which is strange as we have the documdnts) is that by ignoring history it repeats itself.

This is why you can only rely on writings of mem who write what you believe rather than God's Word.

I may interpret some passages incorrectly, but at least I am sticking to Scripture.

Thank you for the information. I am more interested, however, in what God said.

Jehovah Witnesses believe their theologians correct. Mormons believe their theologians correct. I get that you believe the men you follow are correct in their additions to Scripture.

I have no issue with much of what you have posted.

The issue I have is when what you posted teaches unbiblical ideas.

For example -

We all believe that Christ died for our sins and we were purchased by His blood.

But Penal Substitution theorists merely use that truth to prop up their theory. They change it to Jesus dying instead of us, suffering God's wrath, etc.

That is not exposition. That is eisegesis.

Penal Substitution Theory adds to Scripture. The theory was created via reforming another theory (which h was created by reforming another theory).

Try reading the Bible without using the theory. What is actually written in God's Word is complete and makes sence. All Penal Substitution Theory does is offer a theory which os different from Scripture and different from traditional Chriatianity.

I can say your theory is unbiblical because it is foreign to the actual text of Scripture.

You cannot say my position is unbiblical because it is what is written in Scripture.

Years ago I discussed this and was condemned for using too much Scripture without adding to it
The charge was "all you do is quote the Bible". Guilty as charged.

It is not my fault that penal substitution theorists believe Scripture does not make sense. The Spirit guides those of us who believe and opens up Scripture - not bia exposition but by a realization Scripture itself makes sence. Even though interpretations differ we rely on God's Word (different focuses and interpretations of some verses).
You need to use more honest words than exposition. Penal Substitution Theory adds what is not there and denies what is there.

By what basis can God remain Holy and save lost sinners though? Where and when how did our their sin debt obligation go away?

JonC said:
Lol....no, I am reading it.

John makes the point that if you sin you have an Advocate in Christ, and Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

Jesus is our Advocate (in Hebrews, our Mediator) who advocates for us based not on us or what we have or will do but based on Himself (His identity and work). He IS the Propitiation.

I know you don't not believe that to be true.

And I am not sure what, if not Jesus Himself, you believe to be the propitiation for your sins, but whatever it is it is not good enough. Christ alone is Himself the Propitiation for our sins.

he became our very sin offering as the very wrath of the Father against our sins were placed upon Him in full

JonC said:
That is not what 1 Jn 2:2 says.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John telks us (Christians) that he writes so that we may not sin.
BUT if we do we have an Advocate wirh the Father.
Jesus Christ is our Advocate.
He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

I do not know which verse you are quoting, but it is not 1 John 2:2.

What passage is it?

2 Corinthians 5"21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

JonC · Sep 16, 2025

JesusFan said:
You find the biblical concept of the Lamb of God taking upon himself as our sin bearer the wrath and condemnation due to all of us then as being abhorrent and pagan?

I am saying that in 1 Jn 2:2 the word "Propitiation" is referring to Jesus Himself. The actual Greek word can mean expiation, propitiation, or atoning sacrifice. But it is speaking specifically of Jesus Himself. Verse 1 deals witg those who are in Christ have an Advocate in Him.

JesusFan said:
Its in the bible, see isaiah 53, Romans, Galatians, etc

Except it isn't. People like yo say "it's cover to cover" or pick a book or the favorite Isaiah 53. But when it comes down to it, they can never find the passage that states Jesus experienced God's wrath instead of us.

JesusFan said:
By what basis can God remain Holy and save lost sinners though? Where and when how did our their sin debt obligation go away?

The only "debt obligation" mentioned is the Mosaic Law as a "certificate of debt". This was fulfilled by Christ and "nailed to a tree".

God's wrath "abides on the wicked." They will be "cast into the Lake of fire" (the "Second Death").

God can remain holy because God IS Holy. We are made "new creations", we "die to the flesh", "share in His death" are "made alive in the Spirit", God "removes our heart of stone and gives us a new heart", He "removes our old spirit and gives us a new spirit", He "puts His Spirit in us".

If you are wicked at Judgment then God's wrath will be on you and you will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
If you have been "purified" made "a new creation", "died to the flesh" then you are mot wicked and you will live.

I get the desire for an "easy-believism" faith. But it is wrong.

Brightfame52 said:
I think you are imagining things

Lol....no, I am reading it.

John makes the point that if you sin you have an Advocate in Christ, and Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

Jesus is our Advocate (in Hebrews, our Mediator) who advocates for us based not on us or what we have or will do but based on Himself (His identity and work). He IS the Propitiation.

I know you don't not believe that to be true.

And I am not sure what, if not Jesus Himself, you believe to be the propitiation for your sins, but whatever it is it is not good enough. Christ alone is Himself the Propitiation for our sins.

JesusFan said:
he became our very sin offering as the very wrath of the Father against our sins were placed upon Him in full

That is not what 1 Jn 2:2 says.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John telks us (Christians) that he writes so that we may not sin.
BUT if we do we have an Advocate wirh the Father.
Jesus Christ is our Advocate.
He Himself is the Propitiation for our sins.

I do not know which verse you are quoting, but it is not 1 John 2:2.

What passage is it?

JesusFan said:
2 Corinthians 5"21
21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness

I take it you interpret "sin" in the passage to mean "sin offering", which is a legitimate interpretation.

But where do you see "as the very wrath of the Father against our sins were placed upon Him in full"" in the verse????

What translation are you using?

The Biblical Propitiation Of God's Wrath, and PSA.

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Moderator

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-Known Member

Moderator