Forensic Justification of sinners!

[JonC]

You and I discussed this issue in some depth a year or two back.

Here is what I mean, MartinM, (and I apologize for the length, but I want to be as clear as I am able):

I believe that the term “justify” and “righteousness” are terms describing our relationship to God. The relationship between man and God is covenantal. Men know God through his revelation. God has established the terms upon which he will dwell with man. This revelation is a covenant.

In the Garden God made a covenant with Adam. Implied was that God would dwell with Adam in the Garden, the condition is obedience. With the Fall, this covenant turned into a curse – but a curse with the promise of God’s Provision and a reconciliation. God would once again dwell with man. To Abraham God made a covenant, promising many things. God would make Abraham the father of many nations, but more importantly is that this Provision will come though Abraham.

The Mosaic Covenant is often considered a conditional covenant. Men are either cursed or blessed through the Law. But Paul informs us that the Law was never intended as salvific. Instead the Law served as descriptive, to magnify sin so that all under the Law realize the curse and know their sin. The Law does not show us the righteousness of God (not that the Law is unrighteous, but that God’s righteousness exceeds the Law), but the unrighteousness of men. The Law foreshadows, points to, the Provision promised in Genesis 3. The Davidic Covenant amplifies the coming Messiah.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus became man, completely God and completely man. Jesus did nothing of his own accord, but was obedient to the Father and dependent on the Spirit. Here is the faithful obedience that Adam lacked in the Garden. Jesus was fully human, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. He was presented as a sin offering, yet had not sinned. And becoming human means being condemned under the covenant, under the curse. Jesus had no sin, yet even without the sins of other men accounted to him (in your system) Jesus fell under condemned, accursed under the Law. The Law says that one who is hanged on a tree is accursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal 3:13). Jesus had no sin, but he became a curse for us under the Law.

Where we depart is that I believe that the Atonement and righteousness has in mind God’s covenant and God’s Provision. Jesus was obedient to death, even the death of the cross. He became man, became a curse for man, and is the “Last Adam”. His death is substitutionary and penal for he lay down his life, sinless, and took upon himself the curse of humanity. And the Father vindicated his Son and raised him on the third day.

I don’t want to bore you, but I did want you to understand why I say that we affirm the same Scripture. We do so in a different context. In your view Jesus cannot be guilty under the Law if we are justified based on a moral righteousness, except that sinless God accounts our sins as having been committed by Jesus. But it is under the Law that Jesus is deemed accursed – not because he is charged with our crimes but because he is in violation of that covenantal declaration “cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree”. The Law as a whole, so Jesus can be viewed as the representative of mankind and condemned (yet sinless). God is both Just and Justifier of sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, if I am not expressing this well, please forgive me. I am trying to do my best to voice my concern here. The notion of a moral and legal requirement that someone must pay the sin debt itself does not seem to follow Scripture. Part of this, however, is that I do not believe salvation to have the law or morality in mind. I think it has always been about faith, not the Law.

Also, Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is a part of the Law. This passage gives instructions for those who have been deemed worthy of death, and he is put to death by hanging him on a tree. His corpse was to be buried the same day so as not to defile the land because he who is hanged is accursed of God. Paul reaches back to this curse and applies it to Jesus – He redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree” (Galatians 3:13). I do not know that it is correct to say that Jesus was not “condemned under the Law”. Paul tells us that this is exactly what occurred. This fits, I believe, within the covenant understanding rather than a moral/legal understanding (Jesus falls under a curse, condemned, by the Law but still without sin. I don’t know if this can happen under the forensic theory if based on morality or the Law).

I admire your complete transparency in this matter. I have carefully considered what you have said and here are the conclusions I have drawn. I don't think you really have a problem with the law court context. I think your difficulty is harmonizing it with your covenant view.

Let me present my covenant view from a little different angle which may prove helpful. Often we talk about the Abrahamic covenant but fail to see it in its larger sense. For example, when God spoke to Moses about this covenant he did not restrict it simply to the "Abrahamic" covenant but rather the covenant of their "fathers."

Deut 7:7 The LORD did not set his love on you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, has the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of slaves, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Those "fathers" are then specifically identified

Deut. 9:4 Speak not you in your heart, after that the LORD your God has cast them out from before you, saying, For my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD does drive them out from before you.
5 Not for your righteousness, or for the uprightness of your heart, do you go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God does drive them out from before you, and that he may perform the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As a side note,notice that in both passages this covenant applied to Israel is stated in unconditional terms (Deut. 7:7; 9:4-5a). So the covenant was made with the 'fathers" and the children of Israel are the elect unconditional beneficiaries.

However, let us proceed with these three distinct "father's" Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who had covenant obligations (circumcision) and keeping the way of the Lord.

De 9:27 Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; look not to the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:

De 29:13 That he may establish you to day for a people to himself, and that he may be to you a God, as he has said to you, and as he has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

De 30:20 That you may love the LORD your God, and that you may obey his voice, and that you may hold to him: for he is your life, and the length of your days: that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

De 34:4 And the LORD said to him, This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, I will give it to your seed: I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over thither.

1Ki 18:36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word.

2Ki 13:23 And the LORD was gracious to them, and had compassion on them, and had respect to them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.

Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

Mt 8:11 And I say to you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Not only is the covenant identified with these three fathers, but Jesus identifies God with these three fathers:

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Mt. 22:32

The covenant is identified with THREE Father's because these three are representative types of the THREE Persons in the Godhead and their own obligations in the everlasting unconditional Covenant toward the elect (which Israel symoblizes).

For example the term "Father" is identified with Abraham and he is said to be "The Father of all who are of faith."

For example, the term "son" is especially identified with Isaac as his only begotten Son by God who was also symbolically offered up on Mount Moriah by his Father.

For examle, Jacob is called "Israel" as he is the progenitor of Israel or type of the Holy Spirit who births all of God's elect children.

So the three Fathers represent the obligations of the Three Person's of the Godhead in the everlasting unconditional covenant of redemption whereas Israel represents a type of all the elect who are are the unconditional beneficiaries of this covenant (Deut. 7:7-8; 9:5-7).

The elect are never part of the "everlasting covenant" in terms of covenant obligations as Romans8:28-37 and Ephesians 1:4-14 have them as the unconditional beneficiaries of this covenant.

The Son of God's covenant obligation is to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law's requirements. The elect are chosen in him before the foundation of the world but are not "in him" as far as actual subjective redemption until they are "created in Christ" by new birth (Eph. 2:10). Prior to that creative event they are "children of wrath even as others" (Eph. 2:2-3).

The Second Adam refers to the new creation as the first adam referred to the old creation. However, there are several differences between the first and Second Adam. All mankind was created in Adam when Adam was created.However, the Second Adam was never a created being, and all "in Christ' are created in at the time of new birth (Eph. 2:10). Prior to that point, they are chosen in him according to purpose, they are represented by Christ's covenant obligations but they are not subjectively "in Christ" until new birth. This is the "everlasting covenant" and only covenant of redemption from Genesis to Revelation.

The proper understanding of the covenant of Abraham is only attained when it includes Isaac and Jacob as types of the Trinity and the everlasting covenant and only when it includes Israel as types of all the elect of God. With regard to the covenant parties it is conditioned upon them fulfilling their obligations, but with regard to the beneficiaries it is unconditional because all obligations are met by the Divine Persons between whom this covenant was made in ETERNITY when no human existed.

All other human covenants are either types of the obligations performed by the Godhead, or types of the unconditional benefits to the elect and/or a combination of both.

 

[JonC]

I admire your complete transparency in this matter. I have carefully considered what you have said and here are the conclusions I have drawn. I don't think you really have a problem with the law court context. I think your difficulty is harmonizing it with your covenant view.

Let me present my covenant view from a little different angle which may prove helpful. Often we talk about the Abrahamic covenant but fail to see it in its larger sense. For example, when God spoke to Moses about this covenant he did not restrict it simply to the "Abrahamic" covenant but rather the covenant of their "fathers."

Deut 7:7 The LORD did not set his love on you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn to your fathers, has the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of slaves, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Those "fathers" are then specifically identified

Deut. 9:4 Speak not you in your heart, after that the LORD your God has cast them out from before you, saying, For my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD does drive them out from before you.
5 Not for your righteousness, or for the uprightness of your heart, do you go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God does drive them out from before you, and that he may perform the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As a side note,notice that in both passages this covenant applied to Israel is stated in unconditional terms (Deut. 7:7; 9:4-5a). So the covenant was made with the 'fathers" and the children of Israel are the elect unconditional beneficiaries.

However, let us proceed with these three distinct "father's" Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who had covenant obligations (circumcision) and keeping the way of the Lord.

De 9:27 Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; look not to the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin:

De 29:13 That he may establish you to day for a people to himself, and that he may be to you a God, as he has said to you, and as he has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

De 30:20 That you may love the LORD your God, and that you may obey his voice, and that you may hold to him: for he is your life, and the length of your days: that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

De 34:4 And the LORD said to him, This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, I will give it to your seed: I have caused you to see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over thither.

1Ki 18:36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word.

2Ki 13:23 And the LORD was gracious to them, and had compassion on them, and had respect to them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.

Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

Mt 8:11 And I say to you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Not only is the covenant identified with these three fathers, but Jesus identifies God with these three fathers:

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Mt. 22:32

The covenant is identified with THREE Father's because these three are representative types of the THREE Persons in the Godhead and their own obligations in the everlasting unconditional Covenant toward the elect (which Israel symoblizes).

For example the term "Father" is identified with Abraham and he is said to be "The Father of all who are of faith."

For example, the term "son" is especially identified with Isaac as his only begotten Son by God who was also symbolically offered up on Mount Moriah by his Father.

For examle, Jacob is called "Israel" as he is the progenitor of Israel or type of the Holy Spirit who births all of God's elect children.

So the three Fathers represent the obligations of the Three Person's of the Godhead in the everlasting unconditional covenant of redemption whereas Israel represents a type of all the elect who are are the unconditional beneficiaries of this covenant (Deut. 7:7-8; 9:5-7).

The elect are never part of the "everlasting covenant" in terms of covenant obligations as Romans8:28-37 and Ephesians 1:4-14 have them as the unconditional beneficiaries of this covenant.

The Son of God's covenant obligation is to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law's requirements. The elect are chosen in him before the foundation of the world but are not "in him" as far as actual subjective redemption until they are "created in Christ" by new birth (Eph. 2:10). Prior to that creative event they are "children of wrath even as others" (Eph. 2:2-3).

The Second Adam refers to the new creation as the first adam referred to the old creation. However, there are several differences between the first and Second Adam. All mankind was created in Adam when Adam was created.However, the Second Adam was never a created being, and all "in Christ' are created in at the time of new birth (Eph. 2:10). Prior to that point, they are chosen in him according to purpose, they are represented by Christ's covenant obligations but they are not subjectively "in Christ" until new birth. This is the "everlasting covenant" and only covenant of redemption from Genesis to Revelation.

The proper understanding of the covenant of Abraham is only attained when it includes Isaac and Jacob as types of the Trinity and the everlasting covenant and only when it includes Israel as types of all the elect of God. With regard to the covenant parties it is conditioned upon them fulfilling their obligations, but with regard to the beneficiaries it is unconditional because all obligations are met by the Divine Persons between whom this covenant was made in ETERNITY when no human existed.

All other human covenants are either types of the obligations performed by the Godhead, or types of the unconditional benefits to the elect and/or a combination of both.

Thank you for the reply. I've printed off your post so that I can consider it in detail (I'm at work at the moment so I can't give it the time it deserves). But I will work through your comments and consider your observations. At a glance, I do think that we agree more than it first appeared as we may be looking at or defining a few things differently. I am sure that we also disagree but am looking forward to sifting through our positions. Thanks again.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that the term “justify” and “righteousness” are terms describing our relationship to God. The relationship between man and God is covenantal. Men know God through his revelation. God has established the terms upon which he will dwell with man. This revelation is a covenant.

I am covenantal in my understanding of God's dealings with man. However, the texts that I quoted have nothing to do with covenants per se, but with the righteousness and justice of God, and that which He demands of men.
Exodus 23:7. 'Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.'
Deuteronomy 25:1. 'If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked.....'
Proverbs 17:15. ''He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.'
The language is not covenantal- you would have to read that in- but judicial. False justice is an abomination to God. Therefore He Himself cannot declare sinners righteous without punishment being inflicted. Therefore, either we must pay the full penalty for our sins or Christ must pay it for us.

In your view Jesus cannot be guilty under the Law if we are justified based on a moral righteousness, except that sinless God accounts our sins as having been committed by Jesus.

That is correct. 'He was pierced for our transgressions............when You make His soul an offering for sin........My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.' These texts are too clear to be argued away, not to mention the texts from Leviticus that 'Biblicist' has quoted above.

But it is under the Law that Jesus is deemed accursed – not because he is charged with our crimes but because he is in violation of that covenantal declaration “cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree”. The Law as a whole, so Jesus can be viewed as the representative of mankind and condemned (yet sinless). God is both Just and Justifier of sinners.

True it is that Christ bears the curse, but He became a curse for us, 'For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them"' (Galatians 3:10). We are under a curse, and so Christ becomes a curse for us (Galatians 3:13) in the same way that He is 'made sin'- made the very epitome of sin, and carrying it- for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).

'The types and figures are fulfilled;
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.'
[Charles Wesley]

Christ has done it all! He has vindicated the justice of God, drinking the cup of His wrath down to the very dregs; He has realised the covenants; He has fulfilled the types and shadows; He is The LORD our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). Well might He cry in His last agonies, "It is finished!" I think I should finish off with an Alleluia!

 

[JonC]

I am covenantal in my understanding of God's dealings with man. However, the texts that I quoted have nothing to do with covenants per se, but with the righteousness and justice of God, and that which He demands of men.

But that is, probably, one of the major differences in our position. Those verses have everything to do with the covenant if righteousness is based on God’s covenant with man (expressed negatively with Adam, positively through Christ). God will dwell with man, mankind’s “part” is faithful obedience. In Adam all of mankind fell (they were not faithful), but in Christ we find redemption for mankind (Jesus was faithful even to death on a cross). In my understanding, the focus of righteousness is God (the object, God dwelling with man), not the Law with the object of being “morally right”.

I am still considering The_Biblicist’s position, but at this time I can safely say that I do not see the righteousness and justice of God as being derived from or expressed in the Law. Rather, I view the Law as “keeping Israel captive”, as showing us our sin, and as such as demonstrating our unrighteousness. With Christ, his faithful obedience to the Law pointed to his righteousness, but was not the basis for righteousness.

The language in those passages is judicial, yes. But this does not mean that it is not “covenantal language”. A covenant is a legal agreement, and God’s covenants are just as much so with the exception that his covenants are founded in divine righteousness rather than civil laws. My argument is that those who are considered “just” are so based on their standing within God’s covenant, God’s own Word, and not based on the Law.

'He was pierced for our transgressions............when You make His soul an offering for sin........My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.' 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.' These texts are too clear to be argued away, not to mention the texts from Leviticus that 'Biblicist' has quoted above.

I agree. I would never consider “arguing away” any of those texts. What I am arguing against is that words have the Law ultimately in mind. Christ was pierced for our transgressions, and when He makes His soul an offering for sin, He shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities. Jesus Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree. He became a curse for us, because under the Law one is cursed who hangs on a tree.

The Atonement is a movement of God to man. I understand your explanation of the atonement to be a sort of reconciliation between the concepts of divine love and divine justice. But at the same time I appreciate Martin Luther’s concept of Deus Absconditus , and his famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) statement that the God of revelation is not the god of reason. I am not saying that the Atonement is not something to be understood (don’t get me wrong here), but I am saying that the Atonement is more than the Latin view allows.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Those verses have everything to do with the covenant if righteousness is based on God’s covenant with man

I have no time to reply to your post as a whole right now, but these verses reveal that your theology, with great respect, is back to front. Righteousness is not based on God's covenant with man; God's covenant with man is based on His righteousness.

If you are going to dismiss every Bible verse I quote with, "Ah yes, but the covenant, you see...." then there is no point at all in discussing further. You need to see the verses in the context in which they are set: the righteousness of God.

at this time I can safely say that I do not see the righteousness and justice of God as being derived from or expressed in the Law.

Again, the righteousness of God is not derived from the law; the law is derived from the righteousness of God. And if His righteousness is not expressed in the law, what is expressed there?

 

[JonC]

I have no time to reply to your post as a whole right now, but these verses reveal that your theology, with great respect, is back to front. Righteousness is not based on God's covenant with man; God's covenant with man is based on His righteousness.

If you are going to dismiss every Bible verse I quote with, "Ah yes, but the covenant, you see...." then there is no point at all in discussing further. You need to see the verses in the context in which they are set: the righteousness of God.

Again, the righteousness of God is not derived from the law; the law is derived from the righteousness of God. And if His righteousness is not expressed in the law, what is expressed there?

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I am not saying that God's righteousness is derived or based on God's covenant any more than you are saying that God's righteousness is based on the Law.

I am saying that men are justified as being "right" in accord with God's covenant. Men are counted as right by faith in Christ, and this righteousness is based in Christ's obedience as the "Righteous One" to death, even the death on a cross.

And no, I have not dismissed even one of the passages you provided. I am, in fact, thankful that you took the time to do so. Basically, if you substitute "the Law" with "God's covenant" then you come close to what I am saying. The verses apply the exact same way, but the conclusions are different.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I am not saying that God's righteousness is derived or based on God's covenant any more than you are saying that God's righteousness is based on the Law.

I am saying that men are justified as being "right" in accord with God's covenant. Men are counted as right by faith in Christ, and this righteousness is based in Christ's obedience as the "Righteous One" to death, even the death on a cross.

And no, I have not dismissed even one of the passages you provided. I am, in fact, thankful that you took the time to do so. Basically, if you substitute "the Law" with "God's covenant" then you come close to what I am saying. The verses apply the exact same way, but the conclusions are different.

Will you please look through my posts #24 and #26 and tell me which quotation of 'law' you wish to replace with 'God's covenant'? Thank you.

 

[JonC]

Will you please look through my posts #24 and #26 and tell me which quotation of 'law' you wish to replace with 'God's covenant'? Thank you.

There are no quotation of "law", so I grant I may have misunderstood you. Regardless, what I mean as my position stands, to include the clarification that I am not basing God's righteousness as being derived from his covenants but rather that that God's promises are righteousness because God is righteous. The righteousness of mankind is, however, dependent on God as he has expressed himself to mankind. Mankind, with Adam as it's head, has fallen because of Adam's disobedience. But through the obedience of Christ, mankind can once again be "righteous" but only "in Christ" as "God's Righteous One".

 

[JonC]

Often we talk about the Abrahamic covenant but fail to see it in its larger sense. For example, when God spoke to Moses about this covenant he did not restrict it simply to the "Abrahamic" covenant but rather the covenant of their "fathers."

Amen! I agree. Not only do we get caught up (sometimes) in one covenant but we sometimes the “grand scheme” (if you will) of redemption. God’s covenant with Abraham is, in a real sense, a revelation (in part) of His plan of reconciliation.

As a side note,notice that in both passages this covenant applied to Israel is stated in unconditional terms (Deut. 7:7; 9:4-5a). So the covenant was made with the 'fathers" and the children of Israel are the elect unconditional beneficiaries.

I agree. I think it descriptive (Abraham’s “part” of the covenant is simply faith in God to be faithful to His word, His covenant). This, I believe, highlights the distinctiveness of the Mosaic Covenant (it was not things to do in order to be saved, but rather pointed to Christ and revealed to man his unrighteousness).

The covenant is identified with THREE Father's because these three are representative types of the THREE Persons in the Godhead and their own obligations in the everlasting unconditional Covenant toward the elect (which Israel symoblizes).

I am going to have to think about this some more (I’m a bit thick in the head). I agree with you on one head – and to support your position, Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the earth. But I also see this Covenant as being inclusive of mankind (as a whole), as Jesus is that Lamb, the Son of Man, within this Covenant.

As you describe this Covenant between the Trinity, I think that it is what I have considered as an “eternal purpose”. All of Creation was made looking to reconciliation in Christ.

The Son of God's covenant obligation is to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law's requirements. The elect are chosen in him before the foundation of the world but are not "in him" as far as actual subjective redemption until they are "created in Christ" by new birth (Eph. 2:10). Prior to that creative event they are "children of wrath even as others" (Eph. 2:2-3).

Accepting this Covenant between the members of the Trinity, I disagree that “the covenant obligation is to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law’s requirement.”

One reason is that I see the Law as given specifically to Moses and Israel at that time (Deuteronomy 5:3 specifies – “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.”). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were never under the Law. Noah was not under the Law.

Instead, I believe that Scripture bears out that the Law was to “keep” Israel “locked” in sin. It was to demonstrate man’s unrighteousness rather than serve as a plan of redemption.

The Mosaic Covenant (the Law) is given under the Abrahamic Covenant to a specific people and for a specific purpose. I believe that, using the Covenant between the Trinity language, Jesus’ obligation was the faithful obedience that Adam lacked. And this is why righteousness is not a “moral righteousness”, and justification is not the forensic justification of sinners. It is, first and foremost, a matter of faith (and the type of faith that yields faithful obedience).

God will give us a new heart and a new spirit. He will put His Spirit in us, cause us to walk in His statutes, and we will obey. Just as with Abraham, we are “reckoned” righteous based on faith in God’s faithfulness to His Word (to His Covenant, to this “Covenant between the Trinity”).

The Second Adam refers to the new creation as the first adam referred to the old creation. However, there are several differences between the first and Second Adam. All mankind was created in Adam when Adam was created.However, the Second Adam was never a created being, and all "in Christ' are created in at the time of new birth (Eph. 2:10). Prior to that point, they are chosen in him according to purpose, they are represented by Christ's covenant obligations but they are not subjectively "in Christ" until new birth. This is the "everlasting covenant" and only covenant of redemption from Genesis to Revelation.

I am not certain about the language. I believe that all of the covenants – from Adam to the New Covenant – exist within this larger Covenant to which you point…or perhaps it is how this “eternal Covenant” is worked out among mankind. But I believe we are in agreement here.

The proper understanding of the covenant of Abraham is only attained when it includes Isaac and Jacob as types of the Trinity and the everlasting covenant and only when it includes Israel as types of all the elect of God. With regard to the covenant parties it is conditioned upon them fulfilling their obligations, but with regard to the beneficiaries it is unconditional because all obligations are met by the Divine Persons between whom this covenant was made in ETERNITY when no human existed.

All other human covenants are either types of the obligations performed by the Godhead, or types of the unconditional benefits to the elect and/or a combination of both.

Again, I have to consider this a bit more. But I think that, while I may not use the same language as you, we largely agree. The whole purpose of the covenants given to man are to point to God, and that redemption is of God and not man. Faith has always been the only requirement (a faithfulness, or trust, in God’s on faithfulness to His Word). Scripture often emphasizes the obedience of Christ, that our redemption was dependent on the faithful obedience of the Son, and in the Old Testament the faith and obedience of God’s Anointed One, His Righteous One.

Our major difference is in the “obligation” of the Son. You state it is “to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law’s requirement” while I believe it is a matter of faithful obedience as the representative of mankind. The criteria for you seems to be the Law, but for me it is faith in God’s own faithfulness to this Covenant.

 

[Yeshua1]

Before I answer I will once again point out that I believe that Atonement was both substitutionary and penal. Let’s look at your statement in application, and what I am saying about it.

You are saying that for one person to forgive another, the one offended must find someone else upon whom he can express his wrath. If Mike insults your wife, and then asks for forgiveness, and Joe volunteers to take your wrath for that insult on Mike’s behalf, then you are justified in punching Joe in the nose. I think that is stupid.

How can God forgive our sins without having someone bearing our sins and experiencing the wrath of God for those sins as the due penalty? This is a trick question. God cannot forgive what has already been paid in full, and demanding full payment in order to forgive a debt is not forgiveness. What you present here is a simplistic fairy tale based off a corruption of tradition, which was in turn based off theory that was in turn designed to correct another theory that was based off another tradition, and so forth.

Jesus bore our sins (the sin of mankind) by becoming man (the Word became flesh, fully God and fully man) and dying as our representative (the “Last Adam”) so that in Him we will not face the consequences of our own sinfulness (Jesus died in our stead) as He is the propitiation for the sins of the world (the atoning sacrifice that turns away or appeases wrath).

N.T. Wright???

I am not sure why you are so fascinated by N.T. Wright.

To answer your question (yet again), I have read Wright deny those accusations but I do not know enough about the man to argue his case, and frankly I do not care to learn enough to argue his case either way.

I think tha Wrig is really a wolf in sheeps clothing, ash holds t th resurrection, but denies Pauline justification!

And why would it be wrong or dumb to have God lay His wrath on Jesus, as he did die in our stead/behalf? He died fo our individual sins, and not for corporate humanity, correct>

 

[Yeshua1]

I apologize for what is obviously a poor articulation on my part. I am finding it difficult to ask how you arrive at one point without it appearing that I hold a position foreign to my belief. Trying to afford each view the legitimacy it deserves (as a view, not necessarily as the correct view) can be a little precarious.

What you have done in your reply is point out one of these faults. I am not questioning the order of sin, repentance, and forgiveness. Even at the most basic (which is probably the best), Jesus commanded “repent and believe”. I agree with you that the Levitical system was established by God, pointing to the ministry and continued ministry of Christ. I also, of course, believe that sin is committed, then atonement, and then forgiveness. This is not what I was asking, and again, I take the blame for how I presented the question, not you for how you answered it.

You have worked out your theology. This has been clear from several discussions, arguments, and even agreements that we have had in the past. As it stands, I affirm much of what you affirm in that Christ’s work was both penal (it had God’s wrath in view, the punishment or consequence for our sin) and it was substitutionary (Jesus is the atoning sacrifice, the propitiation). That said, there are theories that come from a penal substutionary atonement that are, in my opinion, extreme and without warrant. My opinion is based on the fact that I do not see where the ideas could originate in Scripture, but I do see where the ideas could originate historically. So I thought that I would simply ask.

Your position places the Atonement within the context of a court of law setting. I agree that this setting is often used in Scripture, but I do not believe it is comprehensive as your view seems to make it be (often these were images and analogies, but in your position it seems to form the entire context of atonement).

My question is how we get there from Scripture. How do we get the idea that God must punish someone for a wrong, even if that someone is not the guilty party? How did we even arrive at the idea that “sin debt” can exist apart from the sinner so that another could experience that punishment? How did we arrive at the idea that divine justice cannot forgive upon repentance, provided it is within the terms of God’s expressed covenant with man? I see how we can get there through secular means, but I do not see it in Scripture. I am not saying you are wrong, and I am definitely not saying that you are correct (I strongly believe otherwise), but I am asking you to explain at least how this worldview (which I view as unbiblical) is in fact founded in Scripture.

When I joined this board back in 2001 it was for these types of discussions. I still believe that they can be had, honestly. So I ask again, how do we get there via Scripture. We may never agree, but I would like to at least understand how you support the context that you apply to the atonement.

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast -- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (NIV)

Jesus was to be the One to come to die for sins of His elect, and God placed my sin on Him who knew no sin, in oder to b able to credit me as being one who fully satisfied and kept His Law!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not at all. I was asking Y1 (and then you, since you entered the conversation) to explain how one arrives at his position using Scripture. It is your position, not mine.
To clarify, “ad hominem” is when someone argues against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. I don’t care what you believe I was implying. You are wrong. To clarify, it is an asinine conclusion to take my conclusion that that my own illustration is “stupid” or that another is “a simplistic fairy tale” to mean that the person is stupid or simplistic. And that is speaking of your conclusion being foolish, not you.

It would be fair, and “adult like” for you to ask me to justify my comments (instead of assuming an intent). And I would have said that the example of a husband punching Joe in the noise is stupid for two reasons: it is unjust (justice is not the punishment itself, it is has in focus the offender) and it serves no purpose – and I never thought someone would seriously consider it justice (you were not in the conversation at the time). And the reason I referred the presentation as a “simplistic fairy tale” is it finds its origin not in Scripture but in RCC doctrine (it is reformed Catholic doctrine) – but as I stated I am open to being shown (via Scripture) otherwise.

I don’t know you and frankly I do not care what you assume or infer. Here forward, however, you can KNOW that I am dealing with the position, argument, conclusion, or statement and not the person. If you find yourself confused here, please feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to explain in an even more detailed manner.
Of course not. That 's just mere smoke and mirrors. I agree that the Levitical system points to Christ. That's a given. But the sacrifice was not viewed (at least not in Scripture) as the object of God's wrath, taking the punishment of God for the sins of the people. Again you miss the point. Forgiveness is linked to the covenants. We all know this.

I am trying to ask you these things in stages (step by step), not because I think that you are confused about your doctrine but because I do not see how you get from the beliefs of the early church (those statements you rejected as “the wrong definitions” were not mine – I took them directly from Scripture) to where we find arrive a century and a half later.

Ephesians 4:31-32 (We are to be kind, tenderhearted, forgiving each other just as God in Christ has forgiven us); Matthew 6:14-15 (if we forgive, God will forgive us); Luke 11:4 (forgive us, God, as we forgive others); 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (Love does not take into account a wrong).

If we remove Reformed ideas that developed from theories of a “divine penance”, then how do we arrive at your understanding? That is what I am asking – based on Scripture (and apart from Catholic doctrine) how do you get the idea that God had to demand payment in full for sin before he could forgive sin? Not that we did not need redemption, not that our sins needn't be atoned for, but that God's wrath can be diverted but never truly appeased. Where is this framework in Scripture?

God demands that the sinnr must pay for their sins, ad the penalty isdeath! Eithr I diefomy sins to appease wrath of God, or else Jesus does that in my stead!

 

[Yeshua1]

You and I discussed this issue in some depth a year or two back. I suppose I am one of those whom you consider to espouse 'extreme' views on the subject.

However, the reason why the context is one of the law courts is that 'justify' (Hebrew tsadaq, Greek dikaioo) is primarily a legal term. I refer you to Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:23. To justify is a legal term meaning to declare someone righteous and is the opposite of to condemn.

So Romans 3:21-31 is very important here. If God regards justifying the wicked as an 'abomination,' how can He justify wicked sinners like us? How can we be 'justified freely by His grace' (Romans 3:24) without God breaking His own law and becoming an abomination to Himself? Christ was therefore set forth as a 'propitiation' (a sacrifice that turns away wrath) 'to demonstrate at the present time [God's] righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (v.26). God has punished sin, but He has done so in His own dear spotless innocent Son. He has taken the punishment that we deserve. He has drained the cup of God's wrath against sin to the dregs (Psalm 75:8; Matthew 26:42) so that 'there is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus' (Romans 8:1), and that 'the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us......' (v.4).

Amen, as God cannot decare any of usright wit Him now IF Jesus di not takeupon Himseld on the CRoss all of my sin obligation owed to God. God is Holy, and sinning against im must be accounted for, and is wrath needs to beplaced upon someone!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, I don't consider you extreme. I have encountered some people who are so confined by a theory they deny anything it doesn't encompass, including Scripture. That is what I mean by "extreme". You and I just disagree (here and with the meaning of "forsake", if I recall correctly).

The irony is that we both demand Scripture of the other yet the Scriptures we provide are the same. I am working through your post, and it is clear to me the difference is not Scripture.

I agree we are dealing with 'legal" terms. But what I see as covenantal ("legal" in a contractual sense) others see as moral and based on the Law. So I agree completely with the passages you offer, but I end up with a different conclusion.

I am interested in why we interpret the context so differently.

I trhink the term extreme to us would be something that Wrights and othrs use here, as they seem to think that it is horrible to have God placing wrath of Jesus, as th hae ued term Gid would be a child molester doing that act!

 

[The Biblicist]

Accepting this Covenant between the members of the Trinity, I disagree that “the covenant obligation is to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law’s requirement.”

I do not see how it is possible to disagree with me here? Sin is a legal issue is it not? Is not sin the violation of Law? God cannot remit sin and still be just and allow that violation of law to stand. If Christ did not satisfy this legal issue, then the legal verdict of law still stands - condemnation. There can be no remission of sin where there is no satisfaction of the violation of the law which is sin.

Second, sin is not merely violation of law, but it is coming short of the glory of God (Rom.3:21). The glory of God is his own personal holiness. Both sin and holiness are moral values.

One reason is that I see the Law as given specifically to Moses and Israel at that time (Deuteronomy 5:3 specifies – “The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.”). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were never under the Law. Noah was not under the Law.

Instead, I believe that Scripture bears out that the Law was to “keep” Israel “locked” in sin. It was to demonstrate man’s unrighteousness rather than serve as a plan of redemption.

The Covenant with Abraham,Isaac and Jacob is not to be interpreted as synonymous with the Mosaic covenant. The Abraham, Isaac and Jacob covenant is a GENERAL TYPE of the everlasting covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is a much more specific and detailed TYPE of the everlasting covenant designed to show why the covenant people (typified in Israel) are not capable of meeting any of the obligations of the "everlasting covenant" because those obligations demand a standard of holiness that cannot be found within man or by man. The holiness demanded is presented in the moral law, applied in the civil law but only attained in the ceremonial law which symbolizes the covenant obligations and fulfillment by the Divine Persons of the Trinity.

This is why the promise of a new spirit and new heart whereby the covenant people can acheive obedience is not to be found in the Mosaic Covenant TYPE as the Mosaic covenant TYPE is designed to show the very opposite and why it can only be acheived in the Divine persons as illustrated in the ceremonial laws and Temple.

Just as with Abraham, we are “reckoned” righteous based on faith in God’s faithfulness to His Word (to His Covenant, to this “Covenant between the Trinity”).I am not certain about the language. I believe that all of the covenants – from Adam to the New Covenant – exist within this larger Covenant to which you point…or perhaps it is how this “eternal Covenant” is worked out among mankind. But I believe we are in agreement here.

The Abraham, Isaac and Jacob TYPE of the everlasting covenant demonstrates that "faith" is a product of God the Father (Abraham) and God the Son (Isaac) and especially the covenant obligation of God the Holy Spirit (Jacob) to secure rather than a covenant obligation by the beneficiaries of the covenant. The Holy Spirit provides and secures repentance and faith as gifts of God, benefits of grace and thus the work of God working in us both to WILL and to DO of His good pleasure.

Our major difference is in the “obligation” of the Son. You state it is “to provide redemption for all the elect by legally satisfying the Law’s requirement” while I believe it is a matter of faithful obedience as the representative of mankind. The criteria for you seems to be the Law, but for me it is faith in God’s own faithfulness to this Covenant.

Yes, the Son MUST satisfy the complete demands of the Law in behalf of the elect as the elect stands under the LEGAL condemnation of the law for violation of the Law. If the law's demands are not satisfied God surrenders his right to be recognized as God by his creation as well as ceases to be God as his own holiness is being repudiated by himself if he allows the law not to be vindicated.The violation of law is a repudiation of the moral right of God to rule over his creatures.

The whole issue of a "Second" Adam arises from the LEGAL violation of the "first"Adam. The LEGAL violation is a moral issue as none can deny that sin is a moral issue. All law in the Old Testament is founded upon the Ten Commandments which none can deny are MORAL issues. The Ten Commandments can be reduced to TWO basic laws both of which are MORAL issues. The Two can be reduced to ONE word "love" which is a moral issue and God IS "love." Thus to sin is to come "short of the glory of God" which is his own personal holiness=righteousness.

So yes, there is no salvation at all for anyone if the law is not vindicated by Christ and fully satisfied by him as redemption of the entire universe is not possible without reconciling a REBELLIOUS humanity with the holiness of God and that is a MORAL issue at its very basis.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are no quotation of "law", so I grant I may have misunderstood you. Regardless, what I mean as my position stands, to include the clarification that I am not basing God's righteousness as being derived from his covenants but rather that that God's promises are righteousness because God is righteous. The righteousness of mankind is, however, dependent on God as he has expressed himself to mankind. Mankind, with Adam as it's head, has fallen because of Adam's disobedience. But through the obedience of Christ, mankind can once again be "righteous" but only "in Christ" as "God's Righteous One".

Actully, t emphesis is on His death, correct? He alwayskeptth Law, was obedient unto death., but tha shed blood as atonemt fo our sns, saved us, correct?

 

[JonC]

Sin is a legal issue is it not?

Yes, sin is a legal issue. It is a covenantal issue that has in view God’s own righteousness. Sin is man’s rebellion against God, man’s failure to merit righteousness.

Is not sin the violation of Law?

No, sin is not “the violation of the Law”. Before the Law was given sin was still in the world. Men who did not transgress the Law (their sin was not counted as a transgression as Adam’s sin, or as Israel under the Law) were still sinners. So no, sin is exceeds the definition of being a violation of the Law. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness (our “sin”, or our “fallen natures”). The Law was given to magnify sin, to show us our unrighteousness, to point to a deeper problem than moral behavior.

If Christ did not satisfy this legal issue, then the legal verdict of law still stands – condemnation.

Christ did satisfy this legal issue. Our transgressions are canceled, the Law being nailed to the cross. But this is not a moral issue based on the Law. It is a legal issue based on the relationship through which God has determined to dwell with man. Jesus willingly lay down his life and was hung on a tree, becoming cursed under the Law, but without sin. It is not an issue of morality, but an issue of unrighteousness.

The Covenant with Abraham,Isaac and Jacob is not to be interpreted as synonymous with the Mosaic covenant.

I completely agree. But the Law is not to be interpreted outside of the Mosaic covenant.

the Son MUST satisfy the complete demands of the Law in behalf of the elect as the elect stands under the LEGAL condemnation of the law for violation of the Law.

No, the Law points out the unrighteousness of mankind. Jesus, God’s “Anointed”, His “Righteous One”, is not sent to complete the demands of the Law but to fulfill the Law. The Law does not pose a demand on Christ, but instead points to the Son as “the Righteous One” of God.

The whole issue of a "Second" Adam arises from the LEGAL violation of the "first"Adam.

I agree, but not a violation of the Law (nowhere in the Law is man commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Adam transgressed God’s command, and those who sinned from Adam to the giving of the Law sinned apart from the Law. But Adam’s transgression was a violation of God’s command. This was covenantal, not moral.

there is no salvation at all for anyone if the law is not vindicated by Christ and fully satisfied by him as redemption of the entire universe is not possible without reconciling a REBELLIOUS humanity with the holiness of God and that is a MORAL issue at its very basis.

Our salvation is not based on Christ vindicating the Law. It is not based on Christ fully satisfying the Law. It is based on Christ’s faithfulness and faithful obedience to the Father (what Adam failed to do) as the representative of mankind in order to save man. Christ became man, took the curse of man, so that man might be reconciled to God.

And I appreciate very much the time you took to explain your position. I know we are not trying to convince the other, but are offering our views openly so that we can honestly understand the other. And I know that we disagree. I like your points about the “fathers” and the “eternal covenant”. Our disagreement remains that I believe the “problem” with mankind extends far beyond the Law and moral behavior.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

[JonC]

Actully, t emphesis is on His death, correct? He alwayskeptth Law, was obedient unto death., but tha shed blood as atonemt fo our sns, saved us, correct?

No, the emphasis (in the Bible) is on the Resurrection. Jesus, having become man, humbled himself by becoming obedient to the death on a cross (he became a curse, under the Law, for mankind). For this reason God exalted him and gave him a name above every name. Jesus was obedient with the obedience that eluded Adam. It is not about the Law, it is about the reconciliation of mankind through and in Jesus Christ and his obedience unto death (not his moral justness in obeying the demands of the Law).

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, sin is a legal issue. It is a covenantal issue that has in view God’s own righteousness. Sin is man’s rebellion against God, man’s failure to merit righteousness. No, sin is not “the violation of the Law”. Before the Law was given sin was still in the world. Men who did not transgress the Law (their sin was not counted as a transgression as Adam’s sin, or as Israel under the Law) were still sinners. So no, sin is exceeds the definition of being a violation of the Law. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness (our “sin”, or our “fallen natures”). The Law was given to magnify sin, to show us our unrighteousness, to point to a deeper problem than moral behavior. Christ did satisfy this legal issue. Our transgressions are canceled, the Law being nailed to the cross. But this is not a moral issue based on the Law. It is a legal issue based on the relationship through which God has determined to dwell with man. Jesus willingly lay down his life and was hung on a tree, becoming cursed under the Law, but without sin. It is not an issue of morality, but an issue of unrighteousness.I completely agree. But the Law is not to be interpreted outside of the Mosaic covenant.


No, the Law points out the unrighteousness of mankind. Jesus, God’s “Anointed”, His “Righteous One”, is not sent to complete the demands of the Law but to fulfill the Law. The Law does not pose a demand on Christ, but instead points to the Son as “the Righteous One” of God. I agree, but not a violation of the Law (nowhere in the Law is man commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Adam transgressed God’s command, and those who sinned from Adam to the giving of the Law sinned apart from the Law. But Adam’s transgression was a violation of God’s command. This was covenantal, not moral.Our salvation is not based on Christ vindicating the Law. It is not based on Christ fully satisfying the Law. It is based on Christ’s faithfulness and faithful obedience to the Father (what Adam failed to do) as the representative of mankind in order to save man. Christ became man, took the curse of man, so that man might be reconciled to God.

And I appreciate very much the time you took to explain your position. I know we are not trying to convince the other, but are offering our views openly so that we can honestly understand the other. And I know that we disagree. I like your points about the “fathers” and the “eternal covenant”. Our disagreement remains that I believe the “problem” with mankind extends far beyond the Law and moral behavior.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

Jesus endured the wrath of God towards all sins, correct? If Jesus had failed to keep te Law one time, e fofeid being Saviour, correct? So there is a salvation by works , Covenant of works as Adam had, but NONE but Jesus could meet that requirement, so His sinlessness and Law keeping obedince was credited towards us now?