1JN.2:2...A.W.Pink

[Zaatar71]

I actually do not care about your skepticism. You are entitled to be wrong.

Or point out your error.

Yes, I did offer the philosophy I use as divine justice. I believe the Hebrew concept expressed in the Old Testament is correct. I believe that justice is concerned with creating a just outcome (a just community, world, etc). And applied to divine justice this is reconciliation in creating a righteous people. I do not believe Calvin's philosophy is correct.

At this point we have seen your ideas, and we will not follow them at all,Thanks for offering your thoughts however.

BUT at least I am able to offer my own philosophy (my understanding of reality).

We only offer scripture, rightly understood.

You cannot even explain how you get from the Bible to your conclusions because you are not a Calvinist.

So, I am an Arminian who identified as a Calvinist???interesting!

You do not understand Calvinism (you only know it's conclusions).

If you know the conclusions it would seem like you know how you got there???

You are a reed holding a borrowed faith.

no, I held what I do, before I knew what these other ideas were.

And we can all see this. You called God's Word "foolishness"

I never have or ever will call God's word foolishness. Why do you insist on making this accusation??? This is dishonest on your part. Can someone else who reads JohnC's posts explain to JohnC that I have never posted this as he claims??/ I have tried to post it for him but he lisses it each time

except it be explained by a Reformed teacher and included in a Reformed confession.

 

[JonC]

Or point out your error.

At this point we have seen your ideas, and we will not follow them at all,Thanks for offering your thoughts however.

We only offer scripture, rightly understood.

So, I am an Arminian who identified as a Calvinist???interesting!

If you know the conclusions it would seem like you know how you got there???

no, I held what I do, before I knew what these other ideas were.

I never have or ever will call God's word foolishness. Why do you insist on making this accusation??? This is dishonest on your part. Can someone else who reads JohnC's posts explain to JohnC that I have never posted this as he claims??/ I have tried to post it for him but he lisses it each time

Yes....by all means if I contradict a passage bring that passage to my attention.

I posted you claiming that my stated belief was just Scripture without explanation and that stated beluef was foolishness. That was one post...not clips from several. You called Scripture without Reformed theology "foolishness".

 

[Zaatar71]

Yes....by all means if I contradict a passage bring that passage to my attention.

I posted you claiming that my stated belief was just Scripture without explanation and that stated beluef was foolishness. That was one post...not clips from several. You called Scripture without Reformed theology "foolishness".

What was that post number?
What thread?
Not that I do not trust you, but want to see if how you read it was different from what I posted.

 

[JonC]

What was that post number?
What thread?
Not that I do not trust you, but want to see if how you read it was different from what I posted.

The thread is "Opening up my statement of belief". It was your response to my stated belief (one of the first replies to the OP...not sure the number).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I actually do not care about your skepticism. You are entitled to be wrong.

Yes, I did offer the philosophy I use as divine justice. I believe the Hebrew concept expressed in the Old Testament is correct.

So how much do you agree with Paul then? 'Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, ...... concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church; concerning the righteousness that is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed, I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus....... and count them rubbish [literally, 'dung'] that I may gain Christ.' Paul counts the whole of his Hebrew upbringing and training as rubbish. Why are you suddenly so keen on it?

Or how about Isaiah? 'He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.' Here is Penal Substitution writ large - by a Hebrew!

I believe that justice is concerned with creating a just outcome (a just community, world, etc). And applied to divine justice this is reconciliation in creating a righteous people. I do not believe Calvin's philosophy is correct.

I believe that God is just. And I believe that He gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes on Him should not perish. What did He give Him to? To Penal Substitution! To be bruised for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities and so forth. And I believe that God was just to do it, and that it was the only way for Him to be just and yet to justify those who believe in His Son.
I couldn't care less what you think Calvin may have believed.

BUT at least I am able to offer my own philosophy (my understanding of reality). You cannot even explain how you get from the Bible to your conclusions because you are not a Calvinist. You do not understand Calvinism (you only know it's conclusions). You are a reed holding a borrowed faith.

I don't get from the Bible to my faith. I find in the Bible the truths I hold. You trust in your philosophy; I will hold on to Jesus Christ.

And we can all see this. You called God's Word "foolishness" except it be explained by a Reformed teacher and included in a Reformed confession.

Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews. Your 'Hebrew' philosophy seems to be making it a stumbling block to you also. To me the cross is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than the philosophies of men.

 

[JonC]

.

My point to you, if that was what you were asking, was that when we offer a teaching that is not actually in God's Word we need to explain how we arrived at those conclusions.

You explained that you hold Calvin's view of divine justice. Now I know how you got from the Bible to many of your conclusions.

I also know we will not agree because, while we read the same passages, I do not believe Calvin's view of justice is actually justice (nobody does, it only exists in his theology today).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My point to you, if that was what you were asking, was that when we offer a teaching that is not actually in God's Word we need to explain how we arrived at those conclusions.

You explained that you hold Calvin's view of divine justice. Now I know how you got from the Bible to many of your conclusions.

When have I actually claimed to hold Calvin's view of divine justice? I don't even know what that is!

I also know we will not agree because, while we read the same passages, I do not believe Calvin's view of justice is actually justice (nobody does, it only exists in his theology today).

'The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.' I expect that people in generations to come will be amazed and scornful at some of our views and understandings. But what little I have read of Calvin (mostly in his sermons) I find to be largely true. But I am not a Presbyterian, I am not a paedobaptist and I would not have burned Servatus.

 

[Zaatar71]

The thread is "Opening up my statement of belief". It was your response to my stated belief (one of the first replies to the OP...not sure the number).

Here is what was posted;

For me, I choose not to lean on any understand but on every word that comes from God.

no, you are only leaning on your misunderstanding exclusively, and turning from truth day by day.

To you that is foolishness.

Your stated views are foolishness , yes indeed. You are welcome to them of course, as much as van, or silverhair are welcome to what ever they hold to.
I clearly said leaning on your misunderstanding exclusively ,your views were foolishness...not the scripture ,as you have posted 4 or 5 times.

 

[37818]

1 John 2:1-2, . . . if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:5-6, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, . . . .

 

[JonC]

When have I actually claimed to hold Calvin's view of divine justice? I don't even know what that is!

On another thread when I asked what would be missing if God made us innocent new creations but did not punish the sins of the "old self" that no longer existed at judgment you said that God has to punish sins to be just.

There is only one philosophy that holds justice demands every crime be punished. That is the 16th century French philosophy John Calvin held. He wrote commentaries prior to becoming a Reformer, if you want to read of your philosophy.

If you want to read of how Calvin used this philosophy in creating Penal Substitution you can do that as well (read his explanations as a Reformer).


Again, I am not saying you even have a clue about that philosophy. But it is what you expressed. You simply swallowed it when you took that Calvinist pill.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On another thread when I asked what would be missing if God made us innocent new creations but did not punish the sins of the "old self" that no longer existed at judgment you said that God has to punish sins to be just.

That has sweet nothing to do with Calvin and everything to do with Romans 3:25-26. If Calvin agrees with me, that's great, but it has nothing to do with the truth of Romans 3:25-26.

 

[JonC]

That has sweet nothing to do with Calvin and everything to do with Romans 3:25-26. If Calvin agrees with me, that's great, but it has nothing to do with the truth of Romans 3:25-26.

Here is the passage:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


There is nothing in the passage that suggests that for God to be just He must punish sins.



Anyway....whever you got the philosophy...now you know what the philosophy is called. It proved very flawed so if you came up with it on your own you are a dime short and centuries late.

It does explain why your faith passed the test of Reformed theology (however you arrived at it, this was Calvin's philosophy and he came about it in a secular movement).

It is far from justice as described in the Bible (in the biblical text God can actually forgive sins...not punish them on somebody else to clear the guilty).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is the passage:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


There is nothing in the passage that suggests that for God to be just He must punish sins.

Well I think you'll find that there is, but first of all, thank you for finally engaging with the text of Scripture. Never mind that I did in fact explain the text briefly in post #52, and you had nothing to say on the matter: here we are now and lets look at the text you quoted in a little detail. I think it is my favourite text in the whole Bible!

'But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.' What wonderful news is this! The Law of Moses had set forth a way of salvation (Lev. 18:5), but no one could keep it (Rom. 3:20) because it had to be kept perfectly (Deut. 27:26; James 2:10). But now a righteousness that comes from God is revealed - it is He who has come to the rescue! He condescends to save those who could not save themselves, and He does this, of course without sacrificing His righeousness or lifting the demands of His law, as we shall see. The Old Testament had witnessed to this, most notably in Hab. 2:4, but also in Jer. 31:33-34.

'But it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God......' This righteousness that God gives comes through faith; works are excluded (v.27). I prefer the Majority Text reading here: 'to all, and on all who believe.' The Gospel comes to all, but it is effective only to those who trust in Jesus Christ. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (v.9), because everyone without exception has fallen short of the glory of God through their sins.
'.... being justified as a gift [freely, without cost] by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..... '
Sinners are justified [declared righteous - the opposite of condemnation] solely by God's undeserved favour to guilty sinners like us, and that favour is found only in the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:12). How does it come? Through the redemption which He accomplished. The word 'redemption' here as elsewhere, is apolutrosis. It occurs ten time in the N.T. in its full spiritual sense, and means deliverance by means of a payment or ransom, from the guilt, punishment and power of sin.

'..... whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.' 'Whom' obviously refers to 'Christ Jesus.' God has displyed Him publicly through the reading of the Bible and the public preaching of the Gospel as a 'propitiation.' What is that? It's not a word that is used very much today, but it means a sacrifice or offering designed to appease or turn away anger. One commentator has described it as a "wrath-removing sacrifice." If someone has upset his wife, he might buy her a bunch of flowers to make amends. The flowers would be a propitiation. Of course, the wife may not be propitiated by a bunch of flowers; she might hold out for a slap-up meal, but we know that God is propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ because it was He who set forth or publicly displayed Christ as a propitiation.
This propitiation is 'in' or 'by means of' His blood that was shed for sinners on the cross (e.g. Heb. 9:12-14). Propitiation was not achieved by Christ's appearance, nor by His resurrection or ascension - vital as all these things are - nor by the new birth or new creation or anything else. The redemption that is in Christ Jesus is in His sacrificial death. That it is shown by His resurrection that God accepted His propitiation is gloriously true, but it is in His death that we are saved (Heb. 9:24-28) and that is why Paul, 'determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2).

'This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' To whom did He demonstrate His righteousness? To all humanity, to angels, but especially to Satan and his minions. Satan was the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10) under the Old Covenant, and God appeared unrighteous because He did not punish the O.T. saints. But Christ, in His perfect life, magnified God's law and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21), and in His sacrificial death He satisfied His justice and established or 'upheld' God's law as holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12). It is good because it brings sinners to despair as to their own righteousness and sends them to Christ (Gal. 3:24).
So God has been seen to be just in that He did not withold His Son but offered Him up for us all. In His death He was bearing our sin, and since He has borne it, we bear it no more, neither the shame nor the penalty. Moreover His perfect righteousness is credited to us (2 Cor. 5:21) so that, as Judge, God sees no sin in His people (as father, of course, He is well aware of our failings and lovingly chastises us for them (Heb. 12:4-11), but, 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit' (Rom. 8:1, NKJV). Why do we walk according to the Spirit? Because God, having satisfied His justice and justified the ungodly, pours out His Spirit upon them and puts His laws in their minds and writes it on their hearts (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10). So God is just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Well I think you'll find that there is, but first of all, thank you for finally engaging with the text of Scripture. Never mind that I did in fact explain the text briefly in post #52, and you had nothing to say on the matter: here we are now and lets look at the text you quoted in a little detail. I think it is my favourite text in the whole Bible!

'But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.' What wonderful news is this! The Law of Moses had set forth a way of salvation (Lev. 18:5), but no one could keep it (Rom. 3:20) because it had to be kept perfectly (Deut. 27:26; James 2:10). But now a righteousness that comes from God is revealed - it is He who has come to the rescue! He condescends to save those who could not save themselves, and He does this, of course without sacrificing His righeousness or lifting the demands of His law, as we shall see. The Old Testament had witnessed to this, most notably in Hab. 2:4, but also in Jer. 31:33-34.

'But it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God......' This righteousness that God gives comes through faith; works are excluded (v.27). I prefer the Majority Text reading here: 'to all, and on all who believe.' The Gospel comes to all, but it is effective only to those who trust in Jesus Christ. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (v.9), because everyone without exception has fallen short of the glory of God through their sins.
'.... being justified as a gift [freely, without cost] by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..... '
Sinners are justified [declared righteous - the opposite of condemnation] solely by God's undeserved favour to guilty sinners like us, and that favour is found only in the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:12). How does it come? Through the redemption which He accomplished. The word 'redemption' here as elsewhere, is apolutrosis. It occurs ten time in the N.T. in its full spiritual sense, and means deliverance by means of a payment or ransom, from the guilt, punishment and power of sin.

'..... whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.' 'Whom' obviously refers to 'Christ Jesus.' God has displyed Him publicly through the reading of the Bible and the public preaching of the Gospel as a 'propitiation.' What is that? It's not a word that is used very much today, but it means a sacrifice or offering designed to appease or turn away anger. One commentator has described it as a "wrath-removing sacrifice." If someone has upset his wife, he might buy her a bunch of flowers to make amends. The flowers would be a propitiation. Of course, the wife may not be propitiated by a bunch of flowers; she might hold out for a slap-up meal, but we know that God is propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ because it was He who set forth or publicly displayed Christ as a propitiation.
This propitiation is 'in' or 'by means of' His blood that was shed for sinners on the cross (e.g. Heb. 9:12-14). Propitiation was not achieved by Christ's appearance, nor by His resurrection or ascension - vital as all these things are - nor by the new birth or new creation or anything else. The redemption that is in Christ Jesus is in His sacrificial death. That it is shown by His resurrection that God accepted His propitiation is gloriously true, but it is in His death that we are saved (Heb. 9:24-28) and that is why Paul, 'determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2).

'This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' To whom did He demonstrate His righteousness? To all humanity, to angels, but especially to Satan and his minions. Satan was the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10) under the Old Covenant, and God appeared unrighteous because He did not punish the O.T. saints. But Christ, in His perfect life, magnified God's law and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21), and in His sacrificial death He satisfied His justice and established or 'upheld' God's law as holy, just and good (Rom. 7:12). It is good because it brings sinners to despair as to their own righteousness and sends them to Christ (Gal. 3:24).
So God has been seen to be just in that He did not withold His Son but offered Him up for us all. In His death He was bearing our sin, and since He has borne it, we bear it no more, neither the shame nor the penalty. Moreover His perfect righteousness is credited to us (2 Cor. 5:21) so that, as Judge, God sees no sin in His people (as father, of course, He is well aware of our failings and lovingly chastises us for them (Heb. 12:4-11), but, 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit' (Rom. 8:1, NKJV). Why do we walk according to the Spirit? Because God, having satisfied His justice and justified the ungodly, pours out His Spirit upon them and puts His laws in their minds and writes it on their hearts (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10). So God is just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

I think if you set aside your presumptions and read the text again you will find that your conclusions are not in the actual text.

To help:

What sins were overlooked? The past sins until that present time.

Why? This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


You are assuming your philosophy of justice, that God overlooked sins because He has to punish sins and waited until He laid them on Jesus to punish those sins.

You are interpreting that passage based on the idea that God cannot forgive but must punish sins in order for the sinner to go unpunished.

But the idea itself is not in any text of Scripture. Where I can look to the Old Testament text itself you are looking to what you think the OT teaches.


And that is fine. I do not care about what you believe.

I want to know how you got from the biblical text to your conclusions.

How do you go from:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, ...but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

To God having to punish sins in order to be just so He takes our sins from us and puts them on Jesus and punishes our dins laid on Jesus?

 

[Zaatar71]

Martin gave a solid biblical exposition, where JohnC attempted to explain away and remove any meaning from the words. He says he cannot see how Martin got that explanation from the text, and in this case I do believe him ,he cannot see what we all see!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm going to leave the rather pathetic snidies, and get to the point.

What sins were overlooked? The past sins until that present time.

Why? This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


You are assuming your philosophy of justice, that God overlooked sins because He has to punish sins and waited until He laid them on Jesus to punish those sins.

You are interpreting that passage based on the idea that God cannot forgive but must punish sins in order for the sinner to go unpunished.

But the idea itself is not in any text of Scripture. Where I can look to the Old Testament text itself you are looking to what you think the OT teaches.

I am looking at Romans 3:25-26, which is the text you quoted and comparing Scripture with Scripture to get to the truth. Let's run through it again. I shall perforce be repeating myself a fair bit because I dealt with the whole matter in post #73.

Why did God set forth the Lord Jesus Christ as a propitiation? To show forth or demonstrate His righteousness. Why did He do that? 'Because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.' Why did He need to set forth the Lord Jesus as a propitiation? Why didn't He just pass them over and move on? Because if He had done so He would have been unrighteous. There is no other explanation. God is righteous; He does not clear the guilty. And these O.T. people were guilty; they had committed sins, and God's word declares that the wicked will not go unpunished (Prov. 11:21).

You are assuming your philosophy of justice, that God overlooked sins because He has to punish sins and waited until He laid them on Jesus to punish those sins.

You will see from the above that I am assuming nothing. I have taken everything straight from the word of God.
Therefore, in His amazing love and mercy, God Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, paid the penalty for those sins, and in doing so He also shut the mouth of the devil, 'the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night' (Rev. 12:10). But now the devil has been cast down, which is another purpose of the cross (1 John 3:8).

What sins were overlooked? The past sins until that present time.

I think what you are suggesting here is that God only overlooked the sins of the O.T. saints and that He doesn't overlook those of N.T. saints, including us. If that is not what you are suggesting, you need to be more clear. That view is ridiculous and a very strange form of Dispensationalism, dividing the people of God.
As we have seen, Rom. 3:25 says that God had overlooked the sins 'previously committed,' but verse 26 says that He was also demonstrating His righteousness 'at the present time' which means at the very least the time when Romans was written, but also applies to evryone who 'has faith in Jesus.' O.T. saints might have known our Lord as 'Messiah' or 'Christ,' as 'Immanuel' (Isaiah 7:14) or 'The LORD our righteousness' (Jer. 23:6), but not as 'Jesus.' That is His New Testament name, and the translation you have chosen to use (ESV?), you can see that God's justice is placed clearly in the furure: 'so that He would be [Future tense] just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' Our Lord's great sacrifice applies to all believers - past, present and future.

Finally, you ask why God has to take our sins and put them on Jesus. I have answered this many times, but the fact is that it is in the text whether you approve or not. God is not answerable to you. '"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I have a lot of sermons to put together between now and Christmas and other stuff to do as well, so if you want to disagree, that's fine; but you need to do more than just what @Van refers to as 'tain't so' posts. If you think I've got it wrong you need to show from the text, and bring in supporting texts from the rest of the Bible. If you can't or won't do that, then I don't think you are going to persuade many people on this forum, however much you may brag about your degrees in theology.

 

[Van]

I liked Martin's post because He encouraged thoughtful, biblically based discussion. I was not addressing any issue between Jonc and Martin.

 

[JonC]

I liked Martin's post because He encouraged thoughtful, biblically based discussion. I was not addressing any issue between Jonc and Martin.

I do the same quite often.

I miss the "agree" button. I used the "agree" for agreeing.

 

[JonC]

I'm going to leave the rather pathetic snidies, and get to the point.

I am looking at Romans 3:25-26, which is the text you quoted and comparing Scripture with Scripture to get to the truth. Let's run through it again. I shall perforce be repeating myself a fair bit because I dealt with the whole matter in post #73.

Why did God set forth the Lord Jesus Christ as a propitiation? To show forth or demonstrate His righteousness. Why did He do that? 'Because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.' Why did He need to set forth the Lord Jesus as a propitiation? Why didn't He just pass them over and move on? Because if He had done so He would have been unrighteous. There is no other explanation. God is righteous; He does not clear the guilty. And these O.T. people were guilty; they had committed sins, and God's word declares that the wicked will not go unpunished (Prov. 11:21).
You will see from the above that I am assuming nothing. I have taken everything straight from the word of God.
Therefore, in His amazing love and mercy, God Himself, in the Person of the Lord Jesus, paid the penalty for those sins, and in doing so He also shut the mouth of the devil, 'the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night' (Rev. 12:10). But now the devil has been cast down, which is another purpose of the cross (1 John 3:8).

I think what you are suggesting here is that God only overlooked the sins of the O.T. saints and that He doesn't overlook those of N.T. saints, including us. If that is not what you are suggesting, you need to be more clear. That view is ridiculous and a very strange form of Dispensationalism, dividing the people of God.
As we have seen, Rom. 3:25 says that God had overlooked the sins 'previously committed,' but verse 26 says that He was also demonstrating His righteousness 'at the present time' which means at the very least the time when Romans was written, but also applies to evryone who 'has faith in Jesus.' O.T. saints might have known our Lord as 'Messiah' or 'Christ,' as 'Immanuel' (Isaiah 7:14) or 'The LORD our righteousness' (Jer. 23:6), but not as 'Jesus.' That is His New Testament name, and the translation you have chosen to use (ESV?), you can see that God's justice is placed clearly in the furure: 'so that He would be [Future tense] just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' Our Lord's great sacrifice applies to all believers - past, present and future.

Finally, you ask why God has to take our sins and put them on Jesus. I have answered this many times, but the fact is that it is in the text whether you approve or not. God is not answerable to you. '"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I have a lot of sermons to put together between now and Christmas and other stuff to do as well, so if you want to disagree, that's fine; but you need to do more than just what @Van refers to as 'tain't so' posts. If you think I've got it wrong you need to show from the text, and bring in supporting texts from the rest of the Bible. If you can't or won't do that, then I don't think you are going to persuade many people on this forum, however much you may brag about your degrees in theology.

'"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I encourage you to think about this passage.

I listed the basis the biblical text (God's words, "what is written") provides for forgiveness. I listed the exact words.

That is what I believe to be the basis of forgiveness. Not because it is "my way" or my understanding but because it is God's very words. It is how God says sins are forgiven. It is literally God telling us "His ways".

BUT you tell us something completely different, something not in God's words, not "what is written", but something you believe the Bible teaches.


So we have a choice.

(A) I have listed God's words on how we are forgiven.

(B) You have provided your understanding about what the Bible teaches about God's forgiveness.

They are very different.

I choose option A.
You choose option B.



'"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).

 

[JesusFan]

'"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I encourage you to think about this passage.

I listed the basis the biblical text (God's words, "what is written") provides for forgiveness. I listed the exact words.

That is what I believe to be the basis of forgiveness. Not because it is "my way" or my understanding but because it is God's very words. It is how God says sins are forgiven. It is literally God telling us "His ways".

BUT you tell us something completely different, something not in God's words, not "what is written", but something you believe the Bible teaches.


So we have a choice.

(A) I have listed God's words on how we are forgiven.

(B) You have provided your understanding about what the Bible teaches about God's forgiveness.

They are very different.

I choose option A.
You choose option B.



'"For My thoughts are not Your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8-9).

What was Jesus propitiation to God the father for? What did he appease or satisfy to the Father on that Cross?