Hebrews 2:16-17 PSA.

[Iconoclast]

Now getting back to the OP.;

Owen zero's in on the heart of the issue;
1. On the part of his elect, for whom he undertook that office. They were by nature "enemies" of God and "children of wrath."
Unless peace and reconciliation be made for them in the first place, they could neither have encouragement to go to him with their obedience, nor to accept any mercy from him or acceptation with him; for as enemies they could neither have any mind to serve him nor hope to please him. Here lie the first thoughts of all who have any design seriously to appear before God, or to have to do with him: 'Wherewith shall we come before him? how shall we obtain reconciliation with him?'
Until this inquiry be answered and satisfied, they find it in vain to address themselves unto any thing else, nor can obtain any ground of hope to receive any good thing from the hand of God. This order of things the apostle lays down, Rom. 5:8–10. The first thing to be done for us, was to reconcile us to God whilst we were "sinners" and "enemies." This was done by the death, by the blood of Christ, when, as our high priest, he offered himself a sacrifice for us. This being performed, as we have abundant cause of and encouragement unto obedience, so also just ground to expect whatever else belongs unto our salvation, as he also argues, Rom. 8.

 

[Iconoclast]

3. It was so on the part of God also; for herein principally had he designed to manifest his righteousness, grace, love, and wisdom, wherein he will be glorified: Rom. 3:25, "He set him forth to be a propitiation, to declare his righteousness." The righteousness of God was most eminently glorified in the reconciliation wrought by Christ, when he was a propitiation for us, or made atonement for us in his blood. And herein also "God commendeth his love toward us," Rom. 5:8; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9. And what greater demonstration of it could possibly be made, than to send his Son to die for us when we were enemies, that we might be reconciled unto him? All after-actings of God towards us, indeed, are full of love, but they are all streams from this fountain, or rivers from this ocean. And the apostle sums up all the grace of the gospel in this, that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," and that by this way of atonement, "making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. 5:19, 21. And so also he declares that this was "the mystery of his will, wherein he abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence," Eph. 1:8–10. So that in all things the great glory which God designed in the mediation of Christ is founded alone in that act of his priesthood whereby he made reconciliation for the sins of his people.

 

[Iconoclast]

(1.) They who weaken, oppose, or take away this reconciliation, are enemies to the salvation of men, the honour of Christ, and the glory of God.

From men they take their hopes and happiness; from Christ, his office and honour; from God, his grace and glory. I know they will allow of a reconciliation in words, but it is of men to God, not of God unto men. They would have us reconcile ourselves unto God, by faith and obedience; but for the reconciliation of God unto us, by sacrifice, satisfaction, and atonement, that they deny. What would they have poor sinners to do in this case? they are enemies unto God. 'Go,' say they, 'and be reconciled unto him; lay aside your enmity, and be no more his adversaries.' 'But, alas! he is our enemy also; we are "children of wrath," obnoxious to the curse as transgressors of his law, and how shall we be delivered from the wrath to come?' 'Take no care of that; there is no such justice in God, no such indignation against sin and sinners, as you imagine.' 'But our consciences tell us otherwise, the law of God tells us otherwise, the whole Scripture testifies to the contrary, and all the creation is filled with tokens and evidences of this justice and indignation of God against sin, which you deny. And would you have us to give credit unto you, contrary to the constant dictates of our own consciences, the sentence of the law, the testimony of the word, the voice of the whole creation, and that in a matter of such importance and everlasting concernment unto us? What if all these should prove true, and you should prove liars,—should we not perish for ever by relying on your testimony?

 

[Iconoclast]

In discussing this years ago, my friend said this;
Pastor Mark Fenison said this;

The Law of God does not have an alternative consequence other than penal consequences for violating its standard. The wages of sin is death. That is the penal consequence for condemnation under law.

Nowhere does scripture prescribe an alternative consequence or an alternative payment for sins. Jon's position rests entirely upon an alternative satisfaction for violation of God's Law. Unless there is an alternative consequence for sin clearly justified in scripture, it is foolish to claim that Christ paid for our sins other than according to the penal consequence that is demanded - death. Nowhere does the Scripture restrict "death" to mere physical death. Gehenna is reserved for beings whose whole person is at enmity with God thus confining their hatred to a restricted place while suffering separation from God.Christs person is not at enmity with God and therefore such a restricted place is unnecessary while the suffering of separation from God took place in the body on the cross as that was the actual cause of the "travail of his soul" that satisfied the Father. The union between his humanity and deity within one body "satisfied" the Father with regard to the eternity of the penalty as he encompasses eternity.

Christ was MADE TO BE SIN in the very same judicial sense we are MADE RIGHTEOUS in the eyes of God - imputation -2 Cor 5:21.

The "travail of his soul" (Isa. 53:11) judicially satisfied God's wrath against sin as a direct consequence of being judicially made "an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10)

Death is not the natural consequence of pre-fallen man but the explicitly stated consequence of sin directly addressed to the pre-fallen man (Gen. 2:17). Death "entered the world" not through the creation of life, but with the advent of sin (Rom. 5:12). Death is "the wages of sin" (Rom.6:23) rather than the natural consequence of life.

Theological positions that deny these explicit and essential points of Biblical doctrine are heretical and logically repudiate the Biblical framework of the atonement.

 

[Iconoclast]

They KNEW the death of the sacrifice was PENAL and SUBSTITUTIONARY or IN THEIR PLACE because the Prophets told them (Acts 10:43 "all" inclusive of Abel, Heb.11:4, Enoch, Noah, Moses, etc.) and the prophets spelled it out in no uncertain terms (Isa. 53:1-11).

Oxymoronic! On one hand you admit the Priest did see it substitutionary for sin ("sin offering") and then on the other hand you think it might have been a substitution for something other than man or something less than penal, maybe a substitute for a tea party or a batter for baseball???? You have just emptied the word "substitute" of any meaning with regard to the obvious meaning "in the place of" with regard to the penal consequences of sin - death. Your denying mere common sense in denying the priest did not realize it was substitution for death as a penal consequence. Your problem is that your theology is determined by traditions not by scripture. They obviously saw the animal being punished with death in the place of man as the animal was a "sin offering" and that substituionary penal character is fully described in Isaiah 53 in language you must explain away- end of story. The Father "laid on him" our iniquities, and the Father is the one that must be "satisfied" in the travail of his soul. It is penal and it is substitutionary and it is for sinners and the Christ was the recognized antitype as even John the Baptist said "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."

 

[Iconoclast]

It is unfortunate you can't comprehend the scriptures on this vital issue. As I said your position is oxymoronic. There is no "substitution" in your position because there is no penalty in your position that requires a substitute to satisfy. You can't seem to grasp that the law has but ONE penalty that needs satisfaction. The problem is the penalty not something else needing satisfaction. You can't seem to grasp the simplicity of the cermonial "sin offering" as a clear cut case of penal substitution because of sin which always, always results in the very same definitive conclusion - death. There is but one standard to satisfy and that is the penal consequences of the Law and so there is no "satisfaction" in your theory as you repudiate the very standard which needs to be satisfied. There is no alternative standard, there is no alternative penalty and therefore there is no alternative satisfaction. You empty the atonement of any substantive meaning. You empty it of the very meaning of substitution,and the very meaning of satisfaction as you deny the very judicial nature of the one and only possible conseqeunce that needs satisfaction - death.

It seems that you can't grasp that on the cross, it is the "travail" of his soul being made sin in a judicial substititionary sin that afflicted him in addition to the physical PUNISHMENT of the cross which the Father prescribed (Acts 2:22) as the altar for that "sin offering." Your position is unbiblical and therefore necessarily humanistic, man made tradition and that is what you consistently appeal to - human tradition.

 

[Iconoclast]

**SNIPPED**
You cannot divorce the Law from this issue as it is the law's standard that man has violated and needs satisfaction. Without the law there is no sin, no condemnation, no fall, nothing to make atonement for, nothing to satisfy. The Law as a principle of righteousness is rooted in the very nature of God in so much that Paul describes it as "the righteousness OF GOD" - Rom. 3:21-22. The principle of the law can be summarized in one word "love" and "God IS LOVE."

If Jon's view were correct, what we should have in Old Testament Typology is just the presentation of a lamb without spot or blemish as a LIVING sacrifice! Death should not be a factor if satisfaction is based solely upon the righteous Person and works of Christ. His view makes death unnecessary other than just to fulfill a type as his definition of satisfaction is based upon righteousness and the person of Christ. His view repudiates that Christ suffered death as sinners suffer death and therefore repudiates Christ's death was really substitutionary as there is no substitution for death in his view, that is, for death as defined in Scripture or suffered by sinners.

 

[JonC]

Another sanctimonious insult. No thanks JonC, I have both ,thanks...if I need your input I will ask for it, thanks, but no thanks.

No. It is not am insult.

I once believed as you. I argued the same theories, believing they were correct.

If I tell you the ink blot is a bat you will always see a bat ...not an ink blot.

Have you considered that you "feed" on a specific group of writers? As you mentioned, you do not read the works of early Christians like Justin Martyr. You do not read the works of Christians like John Wesley (for doctrine). You do not read Anabaptist Theology.

That is fine. Those are men.

BUT you focus on the works of Reformed Christians. Your "diet" is restricted to men who "tickle your ears".

I'm not saying it is bad to read the opinions of men like John Owen, John Gill and John Knox. But it is bad to disciple yourself under the teaching of men.

You are the one choosing which commentators you will follow. And you buy into their theology and opinions lock stock and barrel. You hold a faith that is relatively new to Christianity.

I am suggesting that you lay aside human philosophy, stop studying a set of commentators who tell you what you want to hear. And simply study the Bible.

God's Word is perfect and complete. You ate a child of God. If you are able to set aside thise men you follow I sincerely believe God will disciple you in His Word. You will see Scripture as enough.

If you grow to that point ...IF you move beyond the elementary things and to the meat of Scripture....then you will mature in your walk. We may then still disagree ij interpretation - BUT we will be disagreeing in interpretation on what is written rather than arguing about what you think is "taught" by Scripture "properly understood". We would then have Scripture in common.

It is for your benefit I offer these points. As I sad, I was once as you are now, unknowingly blinded by humanistic philosophy, by tradition. But that was my fault as I, like you now, chose to believe Scripture meant something that was not actually written in the text.

Just try to set aside the teaching of men and study God's Word. That is the fire tone I will slways point you - not to the Reformers but to God.

 

[JonC]

It is unfortunate you can't comprehend the scriptures on this vital issue. As I said your position is oxymoronic. There is no "substitution" in your position because there is no penalty in your position that requires a substitute to satisfy. You can't seem to grasp that the law has but ONE penalty that needs satisfaction. The problem is the penalty not something else needing satisfaction. You can't seem to grasp the simplicity of the cermonial "sin offering" as a clear cut case of penal substitution because of sin which always, always results in the very same definitive conclusion - death. There is but one standard to satisfy and that is the penal consequences of the Law and so there is no "satisfaction" in your theory as you repudiate the very standard which needs to be satisfied. There is no alternative standard, there is no alternative penalty and therefore there is no alternative satisfaction. You empty the atonement of any substantive meaning. You empty it of the very meaning of substitution,and the very meaning of satisfaction as you deny the very judicial nature of the one and only possible conseqeunce that needs satisfaction - death.

It seems that you can't grasp that on the cross, it is the "travail" of his soul being made sin in a judicial substititionary sin that afflicted him in addition to the physical PUNISHMENT of the cross which the Father prescribed (Acts 2:22) as the altar for that "sin offering." Your position is unbiblical and therefore necessarily humanistic, man made tradition and that is what you consistently appeal to - human tradition.

You obviously do not grasp what I have been saying. Until you ate willing to accept Gid's Word without carrying into it your traditions I don't think you can.

The first step is to stop relying on theories, philosophy, and what you think the Bible "teaches" when "properly understood".

Only thrn can you deal with God's Word for "what is written". Only then can you understand what I have been saying. As of now, you simply do not comprehend.

I understand. I was tge sane way. As new believers we indoctrinate ourselves on human opinion. But there cones a time, once we grasp the elementary things, that we progressively do away with the flesh, with humanistic ideas, and rely in God's Word....on "what is written".

You are in the "milk" stage of your journey. You are no less saved, but you rely on the works of thise who "tickle your ears". You quote Reformed theology as much, if not more, than you reference Scripture.

Stick with God's Word. It is time for you to move to the meat of Scripture. You will be better for it.

 

[Iconoclast]

As hard as it might seem to you, I am willing to go with what I know.
Do you remember when Peter suggested Jesus go with Christus Victor, rather than Psa.?
Jesus rebuked him saying get thee hence Satan.It is like that.
I will do what I do, you can keep drifting, but I will not be following.

 

[Iconoclast]

You obviously do not grasp what I have been saying. Until you ate willing to accept Gid's Word without carrying into it your traditions I don't think you can.

The first step is to stop relying on theories, philosophy, and what you think the Bible "teaches" when "properly understood".

Only thrn can you deal with God's Word for "what is written". Only then can you understand what I have been saying. As of now, you simply do not comprehend.

I understand. I was tge sane way. As new believers we indoctrinate ourselves on human opinion. But there cones a time, once we grasp the elementary things, that we progressively do away with the flesh, with humanistic ideas, and rely in God's Word....on "what is written".

You are in the "milk" stage of your journey. You are no less saved, but you rely on the works of thise who "tickle your ears". You quote Reformed theology as much, if not more, than you reference Scripture.

Stick with God's Word. It is time for you to move to the meat of Scripture. You will be better for it.

Your posts are like a pile of cow manure.I understand your foul posts which are insults, off topic insults at that.
They are not welcome here.
You are stalking and need to stop.
I said if I want your input I will ask.
I HAVE NOT ASKED.
YOU ARE DISMISSED JONC.
Go back to your own thread and see if you can lure in a victim.or two.

 

[JonC]

Your posts are like a pile of cow manure.I understand your foul posts which are insults, off topic insults at that.
They are not welcome here.
You are stalking and need to stop.
I said if I want your input I will ask.
I HAVE NOT ASKED.
YOU ARE DISMISSED JONC.
Go back to your own thread and see if you can lure in a victim.or two.

Insults? I have not insulted you at all.

I understand your position. I once stood where you now stand. I have probably read as much, if not more, Reformed writers.

What I am saying is that there cones a time where you need to move to the meat of the Word.

You tell us what you believe Scripture, when "properly understood" "teaches". The problem is you cannot test this against Scripture because it is not actually there. You are testing what you believe is taught by what you believe Scripture teaches (and against the writings of men who say what you believe is taught).

This is too subjective. Test doctrine against "what is written".

I woukd not insult you because you are another human being created by God. Furthermore you are my brother in Christ.

And it is for that reason I have been urging you to seek out God's Word rather than man's understanding of God's Word.

Move from the elementary things to the meat of the Word. Then you can revisit the elementary things with a greater understanding.

 

[Iconoclast]

Insults? I have not insulted you at all.

I understand your position. I once stood where you now stand. I have probably read as much, if not more, Reformed writers.

What I am saying is that there cones a time where you need to move to the meat of the Word.

You tell us what you believe Scripture, when "properly understood" "teaches". The problem is you cannot test this against Scripture because it is not actually there. You are testing what you believe is taught by what you believe Scripture teaches (and against the writings of men who say what you believe is taught).

This is too subjective. Test doctrine against "what is written".

I woukd not insult you because you are another human being created by God. Furthermore you are my brother in Christ.

And it is for that reason I have been urging you to seek out God's Word rather than man's understanding of God's Word.

Move from the elementary things to the meat of the Word. Then you can revisit the elementary things with a greater understanding.

Your ascended master posts are not welcome here. You are sounding unstable.Go back to your thread and if anyone wants to ask you, they can do it there.

 

[Iconoclast]

(1.) They who weaken, oppose, or take away this reconciliation, are enemies to the salvation of men, the honour of Christ, and the glory of God.

From men they take their hopes and happiness; from Christ, his office and honour; from God, his grace and glory. I know they will allow of a reconciliation in words, but it is of men to God, not of God unto men. They would have us reconcile ourselves unto God, by faith and obedience; but for the reconciliation of God unto us, by sacrifice, satisfaction, and atonement, that they deny. What would they have poor sinners to do in this case? they are enemies unto God. 'Go,' say they, 'and be reconciled unto him; lay aside your enmity, and be no more his adversaries.' 'But, alas! he is our enemy also; we are "children of wrath," obnoxious to the curse as transgressors of his law, and how shall we be delivered from the wrath to come?' 'Take no care of that; there is no such justice in God, no such indignation against sin and sinners, as you imagine.' 'But our consciences tell us otherwise, the law of God tells us otherwise, the whole Scripture testifies to the contrary, and all the creation is filled with tokens and evidences of this justice and indignation of God against sin, which you deny. And would you have us to give credit unto you, contrary to the constant dictates of our own consciences, the sentence of the law, the testimony of the word, the voice of the whole creation, and that in a matter of such importance and everlasting concernment unto us? What if all these should prove true, and you should prove liars,—should we not perish for ever by relying on your testimony?

Those who read through these links will see the error being offered as the error obscures the work of Christ.

 

[JonC]

Your ascended master posts are not welcome here. You are sounding unstable.Go back to your thread and if anyone wants to ask you, they can do it there.

I am not sure what you mean by "ascended Master posts". I do not understand why you are choosing to insult me.

I personally have no issue with you at all. You are my brother. I do have an issue with the theories you teach and that is what I am addressing.

I was once in your place, defending the theories you now defend. So I completely understand that you believe my position wrong. That is both fair and expected.

I do believe that if you find yourself able to set aside your traditions and prayerfully study Scripture that you will discover the additions you make are not only unnecessary but they obscure what is actually written in Scripture. The Spirit will guide you to a better grasp of "what is written" and you will discover it sufficient.

As a believer still in the process of conforming to the image of Christ O do realize my own imperfections. I am not saying that my interpretations of Scripture are absolutely correct BUT I am saying that what Christians need to discuss is God's Word (not what men believe Hod's Word "teaches" when "properly understood" but what is actually written).

This is our impasse. We cannot discuss interpretations because you are not actually interpreting Scripture. You are arguing what you believe Scripture teaches. Your appeal is often not to Scripture but to Reformed Theology and long dead Puritian writers.

We have to stick with God's Word. When we don't we risk drifting, as you have done, into conjecture and philosophy. When you choose what Reformed teachers to follow it is ultimately you - not God, not God's Word - guiding your own understanding.

Take some time to pray and study, without adding to Scripture. Look at God's Word, not man's commentary on God's Word. I think you will find that Scripture is sufficient, that it teaches exactly what it says.

If, in the process, you have any questions of me then please feel free to ask. You have a godly zeal, and if you lay aside "worldly wisdom" and move on to the meat of the Word I suspect you will be amazed at what ypu have missed.

 

[JonC]

Those who read through these links will see the error being offered as the error obscures the work of Christ.

The "error" to which you point is the actual text of Scripture (minus what you have added, what you think it "teaches" when "properly understood".

It is no accident that you find my stated position confusing. All I have done is provide Scripture. You are simply not accustomed to Scripture absent your philosophy.

Let's leave theories and moral philosophy behind. Just discuss God's Word. No additions. Mo subtraction. No changes. If you are able, you will see God's Word in a different light.

 

[JesusFan]

The "error" to which you point is the actual text of Scripture (minus what you have added, what you think it "teaches" when "properly understood".

It is no accident that you find my stated position confusing. All I have done is provide Scripture. You are simply not accustomed to Scripture absent your philosophy.

Let's leave theories and moral philosophy behind. Just discuss God's Word. No additions. Mo subtraction. No changes. If you are able, you will see God's Word in a different light.

Your position still has not yet provided the basis by which God the father can justify lost sinners and still remain Holy and true to His attributes!

 

[JesusFan]

The "error" to which you point is the actual text of Scripture (minus what you have added, what you think it "teaches" when "properly understood".

It is no accident that you find my stated position confusing. All I have done is provide Scripture. You are simply not accustomed to Scripture absent your philosophy.

Let's leave theories and moral philosophy behind. Just discuss God's Word. No additions. Mo subtraction. No changes. If you are able, you will see God's Word in a different light.

Your position is that held by non reformed and non baptist!

 

[Iconoclast]

A.W.PINK on Hebrews;
"For verily He took not on angels; but He took on the seed of Abraham" (verse 16). This verse, which has occasioned not a little controversy, presents no difficulty if it be weighed in the light of its whole context. It treats not of the Divine incarnation, that we have in verse 14; rather does it deal with the purpose of it, or better, the consequences of Christ’s death. Its opening "for" first looks back, remotely to verses 9,10; immediately, to verses 14, 15. The Spirit is here advancing a reason why Christ tasted death for every son, and why He destroyed the Devil in order to liberate His captives; because not angels, but the seed of Abraham, were the objects of His benevolent favor. The "for" and the balance of the verse also, looks forward, laying a foundation for what follows in verse 17: the ground of Christ’s being made like to His brethren and becoming the faithful and merciful High Priest was because He would befriend the seed of Abraham. The Greek verb here translated "He took on" or "laid hold" is found elsewhere in some very striking connections. It is used of Christ’s stretching out His hand and rescuing sinking Peter, Matthew 14:31, there rendered "caught." It is used of Christ when He "took" the blind man by the hand (Mark 8:23). So of the man sick of the dropsy. He "took" and healed him (Luke 14:4). Here in Hebrews 2:16 the reference is to the almighty power and invincible grace of the Captain of our salvation. It receives illustration in those words of the apostle’s where, referring to his own conversion, he said, "for which also I am (was) apprehended (laid hold) of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:12).

Thus it was and still is with each of God’s elect. In themselves, lost, rushing headlong to destruction; when Christ stretches forth His hand and delivers, so that of each it may be said, "Is not this a brand plucked from the burning" (Zech. 3:2). "Laid hold of" so securely that none can pluck out of His hand! But not only does our verse emphasize the invincibility of Divine grace, it also plainly teaches the absolute sovereignty of it.

Christ lays hold not of "the seed of Adam," all mankind, but only "the seed of Abraham"—the father of God’s elect people.

This expression, "the seed of Abraham," is employed in the New Testament in connection with both his natural and his spiritual seed. It is the latter which is here in view: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16)—not only Christ personal, but Christ mystical. The last verse of Galatians 3 shows that: "And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to promise."

This has not changed since Jesus declared it is finished.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Sacrificial Idea in Paul’s Doctrine of the Atonement

BY GEERHARDUS VOS
The Bible Student 6:97–103, 151–158. [1902

Not all writers on Paulinism admit that the idea of sacrifice occupies a prominent place in the apostle's teaching on the atonement. According to Weiss the references to this representation are, at least in the four great epistles, purely incidental, whilst in the other epistles Ephesians 5:2 is the only passage in which the death of Christ is directly viewed as a sacrifice.

Of the few passages, such as Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21, in which the idea of substitution is too explicitly asserted to admit of subsumption under the idea of sacrifice, he tries to minimize the importance by characterizing them as secondary and relative modes of representation to which the apostle gave no controlling influence in shaping his main doctrine.

We find, therefore, that on the one hand the fact of the prominence of the sacrificial idea in Paul's epistles is denied, and that on the other hand, where the fact is acknowledged, the significance that has been by the church attached to the fact is explained away.

First of all we have the classical passage, Romans 3:25, 26. Next the words quoted by the apostle from the institution of the Supper, in which the blood of Christ is represented as sacrificial blood inaugurating the new covenant, in contrast with the blood of sacrifice sprinkled by Moses on the altar and people on the occasion of ratifying the Sinaitic covenant (1 Cor. 11:25). Further, in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul compares Christ to the ancient passover and in this comparison explicitly affirms the sacrificial character of both type and antitype. Again, we have the statement in Ephesians 5:2, that Christ gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell.