Disagreements about the Atonement

DaveXR650 said:

Are you saying that you have references of writings from early church fathers that refute penal substitution? That is the impression you are giving. If so I would at least like the references.

Click to expand...

Lol....yes. Martin started threads of snippets from their writings and I responded by quoting the fuller writing.

It is not that they say "Penal Substitution" is wrong, obviously, because the theory did not exist at the time.

But their positions themselves are a rejection of the theory.

Take Augustine. Penal Substitution theorists insist that he held their theory. Because his writings describe Christ's death as paying a debt and receiving the penalty for human sin to free humanity from the wrath of God. Sounds like they are right, huh. But actually read Augustine, then reread that claim. Augustine viewed God as sending Jesus to ensnare and defeat Satan. He says it was like a trap. Man owed a debt. Jesus, being worth more than all humanity combined, offered Himself as payment of that debt. Satan agreed, went for the bait, tortured and killed Jesus. But this was his defeat because death could not hold him. Definitely not Penal Substitution Theory.


Take Justin Martyr - Penal Substitution theorists extract snippits common to Scripture as proof he held that theory. But his viewed Christ's death as a substitutionary act suffered under the power of Satan that pays the curse under Satan's power for the whole human family and liberates people from the power of sin and death.

But I don't want to go off topic. So start another thread if you want. You will have Martin giving you a bunch of snippets which you will readily accept without going to the original writings.

DaveXR650 said:

The death of Christ on the cross enables God to forgive sinners. With what you are charging, men would be in no better of a position should they repent. It would violate that same passage for God to make someone unrighteous into someone righteous after what they had done as a sinner. That is the most obvious meaning of that passage. More importantly, no PSA does not say God became unjust, nor does it say Christ actually became unjust or sinful himself, but that he bore our sin.

You mean Romans 3:26 "... that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"? Verses 23,24, and 25 explain why it is no misquote to say the justified are sinners. You are the one always saying not to take things out of context.

Click to expand...

Lol....no. I am saying that God is not a liar. He will not treat the righteous as if he is guilty and He will not justify the wicked. Ever. It will not happen because God does not lie.

If a wicked person repents from wickedness and turns to God, God gives him a new heart and spirit, the old things pass away and he is made new, he is mane a new creation, blameless....then God will not say he is guilty because he not guilty - God is not a liar.


Penal Substitution theorists often extract one part of divine justice (God will not justify the wicked) from the second part of divine justice (God will not view as guilty the righteous) because these two truths cannot be reconciled with salvation in their philosophy.

But we know that God did not condemn Jesus to suffer and die, or treat Him as if He were a sinner. And we know that God did not justify the wicked.

One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns (literally views as guilty) the righteous are both an abomination to God (Prov 17:15).

It is not good to punish the righteous (Prov 17:26).

The evil man will not go unpunished, but the descendants of the righteous will be delivered (Prov 11:21).

God will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity (Isaiah 13:11).

Scripture gives us how God is Just and the Justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:7)

Amend our ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will repent of the evil that he has pronounced against you (Jeremiah 26:13)

Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive (Ezekiel 18:27)

The Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness….forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34)

He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities…so great is His steadfast love towards those who fear Him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does He remove our transgressions from us (Psalm 103:10-12)

You are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger in steadfast love, and did not forsake them (Neh 9:17)

The Lord is slow to anger…forgiving iniquity and transgression, but He will by no means clear the guilty (Num 14:18)

Return to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, weeping, and morning; and tear your heart and not merely your garments. Now return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in mercy and relenting of catastrophe (Joel 2:12-13)

Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed and get a new heart and a new spirit…for I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! (Ezekiel 18:31)

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and will seek my face and will turn from their evil ways, then I myself shall hear from the heavens and will forgive their sins…(2 Chr 7:14)

We were once alienated from God, enemies of God. But God has reconciled us by Jesus’ physical body through death to present us holy in His sight. (Col 1:21-22) Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross so we might die to sin and live for righteousness. (1 Pet 2:24) Because of Jesus’ suffering death He was crowned with glory so by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Heb 2:9). Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity so that by His death He might break the power of him who hold the power of death – that is, the devil (Heb 2:14-15). What is mortal will be swallowed up by life… He died for all, so that those who live would no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose on their behalf …Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, the new things have come (2 Cor 5).

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:28). Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven (1 Cor 15:49). And we al, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18). I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20). And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator (Col 3:10). And to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24).

DaveXR650 said:

You must be joking. Are you really going to state that the primary argument against penal substitutionary atonement is not that it presents the Father as full of wrath so he takes it out on Jesus as in "cosmic child abuse". You've never heard of that? You've never heard that it portrays God as hateful and unforgiving and must have his revenge which fortunately he takes out on Jesus?

Click to expand...

Lol....yes. That is an argument some make just like dome Calvinists argue that free-will theology makes man save themselves. Both are faulty arguments. Neither are argued by theologians, scholars, or anybody that has actually studied the views they oppose.

The primary argument against Penal Substitution Theory has been that it exceeds Scripture and replaces the atonement God has explained in His word.

Another common argument is it denies that God legitimately forgives sins (because it holds God punishes sins in order to "forgive" sins".

It is often argued that the theory is trapped in the law with a skewed view if justice.

Lutheran theologians have argued that it introduced error into Aquinas' theory of atonement by replacing "satisfactory punishment" (which Aquinas strongly defended) with "penal substitution". But I think Aquinas was wrong too.

But "cosmic child abuse"?? You have been reading too many online forums.

Just a general note to everyone, and I have the right since this thread was started as if to try to put a misleading statement in my name - there needs to be some explanation as to the difference between what is needed for Christian orthodoxy or fellowship and what is a matter of debate (even vigorous) in a theological sense.

In 1654 the Puritans were asked to come up with a list of doctrinal positions which would represent the minimum standards for fellowship among Christians. They were lead by Owen and here is what they said regarding the atonement. It was #9 of 16 points:
9. That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who by paying a ransom and bearing our sins has made satisfaction for them.
That's it. That all the further you had to go to be a member of Owen's church as far as your belief about the atonement was concerned. Now, what if you went around the church refuting PSA with your self revealed knowledge? Well, in that case they would have considered your views "damnable heresy".

Now, looking at a non Calvinist fundamental pastor and theologian from my area, much less known, but well loved, John Phillips. In his book on Peter he says this about the atonement:
Starting with "when I see the blood I will pass over you", quoting Exodus 12:13, he goes on to say "that was all Israel had to know to be redeemed from the house of bondage", that blood had been shed and applied. Once redeemed however they needed to know much more than that; hence, the elaborate sacrificial system spelled out in the book of Leviticus. The babe in Christ needs to know only that "the blood of Jesus Christ....cleanseth us from all sin"1john 1:7. The mature believer must have a developed theology of the cross such as found in Paul's epistle to the Romans and in the epistle to the Hebrews." pg. 72

I say that just to point out that the vigorous opposition to anyone trying to discredit such a well documented and supported doctrine such as penal substitution does not mean that if you simply don't know or don't understand you are somehow in jeopardy. However; I do believe that willful opposition, with full understanding of all it means, does show big problems and danger of soul destroying heresy. Just so we're clear on this.

JonC said:

But "cosmic child abuse"?? You have been reading too many online forums.

Click to expand...

Steve Chalke. Picked up and used by Brian McClaren and Richard Dawkins. I guess there's always someone who doesn't get the word.

JonC said:

Because his writings describe Christ's death as paying a debt and receiving the penalty for human sin to free humanity from the wrath of God.

Click to expand...

For goodness sakes Jon, if Augustine said that, and it's your claim that he did, then that is indeed penal substitutionary atonement. Whatever else he wrote before or since or elaborated on.

DaveXR650 said:

Steve Chalke. Picked up and used by Brian McClaren and Richard Dawkins. I guess there's always someone who doesn't get the word.

Click to expand...

Yea....I said theologians and scholars...I should have included "Christian" as Dawkins is a scholar...just an atheist. Chalke and McClaren are neither.

But, to be fair, you said "overcome with emotion and needed to punish somebody" which is different from "cosmic child abuse".

I can actually see how people would come to that conclusion. Penal Substitution theorists are kinda at fault because without the clarification that they are really saying God took the punishment Himself it is cosmic child abuse. And that only applies when dealing with sins like a financial accounting.

With Martin, and I think you as you agree with him, it probably could be cosmic child abuse. Martin views God as literally putting actions onto Jesus. Most who hold the theory (and the theory itself) does not but instead treats sins as financial debts (the debt is moved from our column to God's column).

But who cares? Those you listed are nuts.

I could ask why Calvinists hate sharing the gospel and point to men like Parker when you object.

Do not class the whole based on the minority.

DaveXR650 said:

For goodness sakes Jon, if Augustine said that, and it's your claim that he did, then that is indeed penal substitutionary atonement. Whatever else he wrote before or since or elaborated on.

Click to expand...

It is not. You really do not see why, do you?

The very fact that you think Satan torturing Jesus and killing Him as a trade off is Penal Substitution kinda tells me you do not understand Penal Substitution.

Where Augustine viewed Satan as punishing Jesus Penal Substitution views this as God punishing Jesus.

Where he views Jesus as suffering a physical death as payment for humanity Penal Substitution looks to a spiritual type of death.

Where he views the punishment as unrelated to our actual debt to Satan, Penal Substitution views the punishment as penal for our sins.

Where he assumes a satisfactory substitution wrought by the Devil, Penal Substitution assumes a penal substitution wrought by God.

I know you do not actually see the difference. And if you were to read the early writings, or writers like CS Lewis, you would see Penal Substitution even though it is not there.

DaveXR650 said:

Just a general note to everyone, and I have the right since this thread was started as if to try to put a misleading statement in my name - there needs to be some explanation as to the difference between what is needed for Christian orthodoxy or fellowship and what is a matter of debate (even vigorous) in a theological sense.

In 1654 the Puritans were asked to come up with a list of doctrinal positions which would represent the minimum standards for fellowship among Christians. They were lead by Owen and here is what they said regarding the atonement. It was #9 of 16 points:
9. That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who by paying a ransom and bearing our sins has made satisfaction for them.
That's it. That all the further you had to go to be a member of Owen's church as far as your belief about the atonement was concerned. Now, what if you went around the church refuting PSA with your self revealed knowledge? Well, in that case they would have considered your views "damnable heresy".

Now, looking at a non Calvinist fundamental pastor and theologian from my area, much less known, but well loved, John Phillips. In his book on Peter he says this about the atonement:
Starting with "when I see the blood I will pass over you", quoting Exodus 12:13, he goes on to say "that was all Israel had to know to be redeemed from the house of bondage", that blood had been shed and applied. Once redeemed however they needed to know much more than that; hence, the elaborate sacrificial system spelled out in the book of Leviticus. The babe in Christ needs to know only that "the blood of Jesus Christ....cleanseth us from all sin"1john 1:7. The mature believer must have a developed theology of the cross such as found in Paul's epistle to the Romans and in the epistle to the Hebrews." pg. 72

I say that just to point out that the vigorous opposition to anyone trying to discredit such a well documented and supported doctrine such as penal substitution does not mean that if you simply don't know or don't understand you are somehow in jeopardy. However; I do believe that willful opposition, with full understanding of all it means, does show big problems and danger of soul destroying heresy. Just so we're clear on this.

Click to expand...

You sound like a modernist.

If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and will seek my face and will turn from their evil ways, then I myself shall hear from the heavens and will forgive their sins…(2 Chr 7:14)

We were once alienated from God, enemies of God. But God has reconciled us by Jesus’ physical body through death to present us holy in His sight. (Col 1:21-22) Jesus bore our sins bodily on the cross so we might die to sin and live for righteousness. (1 Pet 2:24) Because of Jesus’ suffering death He was crowned with glory so by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. (Heb 2:9). Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity so that by His death He might break the power of him who hold the power of death – that is, the devil (Heb 2:14-15). What is mortal will be swallowed up by life… He died for all, so that those who live would no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose on their behalf …Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, the new things have come (2 Cor 5).

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:28). Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven (1 Cor 15:49). And we al, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18). I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20). And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator (Col 3:10). And to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24).

JonC said:

It is not. You really do not see why, do you?

The very fact that you think Satan torturing Jesus and killing Him as a trade off is Penal Substitution kinda tells me you do not understand Penal Substitution.

Click to expand...

Is what you just said above this you said below?

JonC said:

Take Augustine. Penal Substitution theorists insist that he held their theory. Because his writings describe Christ's death as paying a debt and receiving the penalty for human sin to free humanity from the wrath of God. Sounds like they are right, huh.

Click to expand...

Did he say that or not. It's your quote. You then try to lie and bring up a different quote. I don't have to reconcile the two things because they both are apparently Augustine. (They are certainly both your quotes) But I would say, just guessing, that you have a man who is thinking and studying and writing at different times trying to figure all this out. And he wrote all his thoughts. Same as scripture when it says he washed us in his own blood, he bore our sins in his own body on the tree, or he gave himself a ransom for many. Are those contradictions Jon? Or are they multiple ways of trying to describe a truth that is difficult to grasp.

JonC said:

Lol....yes. Martin started threads of snippets from their writings and I responded by quoting the fuller writing.

Click to expand...

Lol.... no. @JonC always insisted that a larger portion of Scripture would disprove what anyone could see they were saying. He would have had me typing out the entire corpus of their writings! But he never actually troubled himself to print them out himself.

JonC said:

It is not that they say "Penal Substitution" is wrong, obviously, because the theory did not exist at the time.

But their positions themselves are a rejection of the theory.

Click to expand...

Of course, they aren't.

JonC said:

Take Augustine. Penal Substitution theorists insist that he held their theory. Because his writings describe Christ's death as paying a debt and receiving the penalty for human sin to free humanity from the wrath of God. Sounds like they are right, huh. But actually read Augustine, then reread that claim. Augustine viewed God as sending Jesus to ensnare and defeat Satan. He says it was like a trap. Man owed a debt. Jesus, being worth more than all humanity combined, offered Himself as payment of that debt. Satan agreed, went for the bait, tortured and killed Jesus. But this was his defeat because death could not hold him. Definitely not Penal Substitution Theory.

Click to expand...

Augustine's body of works is huge, and he certainly contradicted himself a few times. But his statements concerning Penal Substitution are robust.
'But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also as Son of God as He was, ever living in his own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our offenses [Augustine, Against Faustus, bk. 14, sect 6]

JonC said:

Take Justin Martyr - Penal Substitution theorists extract snippits common to Scripture as proof he held that theory. But his viewed Christ's death as a substitutionary act suffered under the power of Satan that pays the curse under Satan's power for the whole human family and liberates people from the power of sin and death.

Click to expand...

If @JonC was serious about this, he would provide an actual quote, which I did recently and which he never refuted.

JonC said:

But I don't want to go off topic. So start another thread if you want. You will have Martin giving you a bunch of snippets which you will readily accept without going to the original writings.

Click to expand...

This is known as getting one's retaliation in first.

DaveXR650 said:

Is what you just said above this you said below?

Did he say that or not. It's your quote. You then try to lie and bring up a different quote. I don't have to reconcile the two things because they both are apparently Augustine. (They are certainly both your quotes) But I would say, just guessing, that you have a man who is thinking and studying and writing at different times trying to figure all this out. And he wrote all his thoughts. Same as scripture when it says he washed us in his own blood, he bore our sins in his own body on the tree, or he gave himself a ransom for many. Are those contradictions Jon? Or are they multiple ways of trying to describe a truth that is difficult to grasp.

Click to expand...

Lol....you are not reading. You have to stop assuming his meaning is your meaning.

Penal Substitution theorists insist that he held their theory. Because his writings:

1. describe Christ's death as paying a debt

But paying a debt man owes Satan. His view was a Ransom theory.

2. and receiving the penalty for human sin

But physical death man earns from Satan.

3. to free humanity from the wrath of God.

This part is common to every belief. In Christ we escape the wrath to come. The idea is if we die and are not in Christ then we remain wicked and will experience His wrath. If in Christ we are alive spiritually, new beings, and escape wrath.

The wrath of God was ultimately the sting of death. We would die and that was it. Judgment. No spiritual life. Only death and then wrath.


You read his words, they sounded like Penal Substitution Theory when divorced from his other writings, so you thought he held your theory.

You read into that short clip, ignored the rest, just like you have been reading into Scripture.

You ignore or reinvent all of the passages stating God will actually forgive sins, that God will forgive based on repentance, that God will not look upon the righteous as if guilty, that God will not justify the wicked and read into Scripture what is not in the text.

Martin Marprelate said:

Lol.... no. @JonC always insisted that a larger portion of Scripture would disprove what anyone could see they were saying. He would have had me typing out the entire corpus of their writings! But he never actually troubled himself to print them out himself.

Of course, they aren't.

Augustine's body of works is huge, and he certainly contradicted himself a few times. But his statements concerning Penal Substitution are robust.
'But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also as Son of God as He was, ever living in his own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our offenses [Augustine, Against Faustus, bk. 14, sect 6]


If @JonC was serious about this, he would provide an actual quote, which I did recently and which he never refuted.

This is known as getting one's retaliation in first.

Click to expand...

Yet your quote from Augustine is not Penal Substitution Theory.

I actually believe what you quote of Augustine.

Who did Augustine believe Christ suffered under? Who did Augustine believe was punishing Jesus? Who did Augustine believe we owed a debt?

Yep. Satan. You conviently dismiss what you find inconvenient, just like you do with the Bible.

BUT THAT IS OFF TOPIC. I told you to start your own thread. You have plenty of fellow cultists who will swallow your deception hook, line and sinker. They will not bother to read the actual sources because that is not what they want. They prefer the myth.

So start your thread. This one is not about early church writers or Augustine (I do not agree with Augustine, the mouse trap was not my thing).

*** mod hat on

Stick to the topic. Off topic posts will be removed. Start a thread about other topics if you want.

*** mod hat off

We know that Christ, while forsaken to suffer and die, was not abandoned by God.

We know that God did not forsake in terms of abandon or separate from Christ. Psalm 22 begins “My God, my god, why have You forsaken me? Far from my help are the words of my groaning. My God, I cry out by day, but You do not answer; and by night, but I have no rest”.

If you just take the first part of the verse (Psalm 22:1a) then you miss out on the way “forsaken” is being defined. Forsaken is referring to God not answering or delivering the cries for deliverance. But if you continue through the psalm you quickly realize that God is there, God has not abandoned him.

“For He has not despised nor scorned the suffering of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard” (Psalm 22:24)

For the Lord loves the just and will not forsake His faithful ones (Psalm 37:28). The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are attentive to their cry (Psalm 34:15). Be strong and courageous…He (God) will not leave you or forsake you (Deut 31:6).

JonC said:

Lol....no. I am saying that God is not a liar. He will not treat the righteous as if he is guilty and He will not justify the wicked. Ever. It will not happen because God does not lie.

If a wicked person repents from wickedness and turns to God, God gives him a new heart and spirit, the old things pass away and he is made new, he is mane a new creation, blameless....then God will not say he is guilty because he not guilty - God is not a liar.


Penal Substitution theorists often extract one part of divine justice (God will not justify the wicked) from the second part of divine justice (God will not view as guilty the righteous) because these two truths cannot be reconciled with salvation in their philosophy.

But we know that God did not condemn Jesus to suffer and die, or treat Him as if He were a sinner. And we know that God did not justify the wicked.

One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns (literally views as guilty) the righteous are both an abomination to God (Prov 17:15).

It is not good to punish the righteous (Prov 17:26).

Click to expand...

What you don't understand (or choose to forget) is that the Lord Jesus is our Mediator and our Surety or Guarantor.
I explained all that on another thread a short while ago, but the gist of it is this. It is an extract from the extended piece that I wrote on this board ten years or more ago:

In the Scriptures we have the concept of the mediator, one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

A similar concept is that of a surety. This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.’
Christ is specifically designated in Scripture as ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45) and we are told that the first Adam was a ‘type [or ‘figure’] of Him who was to come’ (Romans 5:14). ‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). All those in Adam perish in their sins; all those in Christ are united to Him in His perfect righteousness.

Who are those ‘in Christ’? Those He came to save; those who were given to Him by the Father before time began. “Christ came not to strangers but to ‘brethren’ (Hebrews 2:11-13). He came here not to procure a people for Himself, but to secure a people already His” (A.W. Pink). There are many supporting texts for this, e.g. Matthew 1:21; John 6:39; 10:27-29; 17:2, 6; Ephesians 1:4. Christ is united federally to His people. They are ‘chosen in Christ’ (Ephesians 1:4), ‘Created in Christ’ (Ephesians 2:10); ‘circumcised in Him’ (Colossians 2:11) and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). But as Surety, the Lord Jesus must also pay the debt of His people, and if they are to be freed from their debt, He must pay the very last penny (Matthew 5:26).

So Christ's actions in redeeming His people are not those of an innocent Man suffering unjustly, but of a Mediator or Surety paying the debt that He willingly took upon Himself.

kyredneck said:

Is there anyone like @Salty, or @rsr, or @Dr. Bob, or @Scarlett O. that can compare the IP addresses of you and @easternstar besides you? That would put this to rest real quick.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that JonC and I are the same person?! What a joke.

Martin Marprelate said:

What you don't understand (or choose to forget) is that the Lord Jesus is our Mediator and our Surety or Guarantor.

Click to expand...

You obviously missed my previous comments.

We are now declared just because Jesus is the Guarantor of a better covenant. God has predestined us to be conformed into His image, predestined us to be justified, to be glorified.

Christ is our mediator. He offers propitiation for Christians when they sin (and He is that Propitiation).

We are forgiven based on Christ Himself. He is the surety of this New Covenant. He is the evidence of what we will be.

easternstar said:

Are you suggesting that JonC and I are the same person?! What a joke.

Click to expand...

Yea, I get dumb notions like that sometimes.

But, it HAS happened before.

kyredneck said:

Yea, I get dumb notions like that sometimes.

But, it HAS happened before.

Click to expand...

People usually think I am @kyredneck . It's a southern thang.