It is Finished

[John of Japan]

I understand that, but if we summarize the purpose of God in the history of man, what do we come to? Maybe this: to display His grace and to magnify His Son in the creating of Children in His own image and glory. That one purpose had multiple parts, and it was all completed at the cross.

Summarized with one word: atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with one exception (I am not sure what you mean by "the end of all our sins" as we have sinned and needed to be forgiven).

I think that the easiest way to say this is Jesus fulfilled Scripture, from the Incarnation to the atoning sacrifice in His own blood.

And I get the wanting to find another. Once we get to six we just have to go to seven.

Our sins were transferred to the Lord Jesus. 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' If my sins have been laid upon Jesus, they are no longer on me. To be sure, there is sin in me, and will be until the day I die or until Christ returns, but there is no sin on me. Christ bore my sins in His own body on the tree, and the guilt, the condemnation, the curse and the penalty were all passed to Him. Therefore they are no more on me.
As the hymn-writer says:
'My sin (Oh the bliss of the glorious thought!);
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more;
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, O my soul!' [Philip Paul Bliss]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Summarized with one word: atonement.

OK, but I don't think that invalidates my post #73.

 

[JonC]

To be sure, there is sin in me, and will be until the day I die or until Christ returns, but there is no sin on me.

I do not understand the difference you are making by "on" vs "in".

I get that you believe your sins were transferred from you (we disagree here) and put on Jesus. But how are they "in" you still?

 

[Aaron]

Summarized with one word: atonement.

There were many things accomplished in the Atonement... Christ's one sacrifice, one work on the Cross, all prefigured in the myriad of rites and sacrifices of the priesthood and the temple, and the law.

But the controversy Jon is raising, hidden behind all this smoke of 'agreement' he's blowing, is, was a sin debt paid? Did Christ receive the punishment due sinners on the Cross, or did He merely die a martyr's death, and then by magic sins disappear?

What say you?

 

[JonC]

There were many things accomplished in the Atonement... Christ's one sacrifice, one work on the Cross, all prefigured in the myriad of rites and sacrifices of the priesthood and the temple, and the law.

But the controversy Jon is raising, hidden behind all this smoke of 'agreement' he's blowing, is, was a sin debt paid? Did Christ receive the punishment due sinners on the Cross, or did He merely die a martyr's death, and then by magic sins disappear?

What say you?

Kinda (I get to answer because you invoked my name).

We all know I no longer believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct, so that obviously means I view the Atonement differently than those who do.

That said, your question to @John of Japan is flawed.

You ask if your belief is correct or of a belief nobody holds is correct.

Those who believe Christis Victor as opposed to PSA do not believe Jesus died a martyrs death, much less merely one, or that sins magically disappear.

I can account for my belief (not all who hold Christus Victor).

1. Did Jesus merely die a martyrs death?

No, that is absurd. Jesus lay down His own life, offered Himself as a guilt offering in obedience to God. He was not persecuted because He would not renounce His faith but lay down His Life to establish ours.

2. Dis sins magically disappear?

Again, no. That is also absurd. The blood of Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

I know you are just trolling, but I do not mind answering absurd questions you have.

My answer was no smoke screen. If you were familiar with the Old Testament practice of making atonement for sin you would understand my position.

I absolutely agree that on the Cross God was reconciling mankind to Himself, not taking into account man's sins.

"It is finished" does mean the blood atonement of Christ was being finished. My statement was I believe it also means Scripture was fulfilled (becausw of verses 28-29). BUT Scripture is fulfilled in blood atonement of Christ was being finished.

 

[Aaron]

You ask if your belief is correct or of a belief nobody holds is correct.

No I didn't. I asked what he thought was accomplished in the Atonement. It's in the form of a yes or no question, since he is not interested in being brought into a debate.

You really need to curb your revisionist tendencies.

 

[JonC]

In the Old Testament a sacrifice of atonement was made. The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood of an animal offered as an atoning sacrifice and with that blood he made atonement for his sins.

The people offered a sacrifice of atonement. The animal's blood was shed (the animal was killed). The high priest entered the Most Holy Place with the blood and made atonement for the people's sins.

I believe this foreshadowed the Atonement.


I believe this is an illustration foreshadowing the work of Christ.

When Christ came as High Priest He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands. He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood. This is how He obtained eternal redemption.

The Cross was God reconciling mankind to Himself, not taking sins into account. Jesus is the Firstborn, the second Adam (man and God reconciled in the Person of Christ).

God set forth Christ as an atonement through His blood to be applied, or recieved, by faith. It is Christ's blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness.

And it is because of this Atonement, this eternal redemption obtained by Christ, this Reconciliation of mankind to God in Christ, that we plead with men to be reconculed to God.

 

[JonC]

No I didn't. I asked what he thought was accomplished in the Atonement. It's in the form of a yes or no question, since he is not interested in being brought into a debate.

You really need to curb your revisionist tendencies.

No. You did more. You created a straw man and attributed that strawman to me.

You claimed that my belief is "smoke" to hide something I have declared for years - my complete rejection of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[JonC]

if we summarize the purpose of God in the history of man, what do we come to?

Probably make man a new creation, conformed to the image of Christ.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

I know that is probably not what you want to hear as it will be fulfilled in the future.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not understand the difference you are making by "on" vs "in".

I get that you believe your sins were transferred from you (we disagree here) and put on Jesus. But how are they "in" you still?

I did not say that my sins were still in me. That is not possible since they were laid upon the Lord Jesus.
What I said was that there is still sin in me, the relic of my old earthly self. My job is constantly to be putting that to death (Col. 3:5), but my understanding is that in this life one never quite suceeds.

 

[Aaron]

No. You did more. You created a straw man and attributed that strawman to me.

You claimed that my belief is "smoke" to hide something I have declared for years - my complete rejection of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Whatever.

I just cut to the chase.
Got to the bottom of it.
Got to brass tacks.
Dispensed with the pleasantries.

Choose your idiom.

 

[JonC]

Whatever.

I just cut to the chase.
Got to the bottom of it.
Got to brass tacks.
Dispensed with the pleasantries.

Choose your idiom.

Yes. We get to choose our own idioms.

We are Americans and, for a moment, have a bit more freedom in our speech than those Brits.

 

[JonC]

I did not say that my sins were still in me.

To be sure, there is sin in me, and will be until the day I die or until Christ returns, but there is no sin on me.

This is what I was talking about

Saying there is sin in you does not mean that your sins are in you.

You seem to be working very hard to reason out a theology, or here a philosophy.

But what if God's words actually make sence?


What if the atonement was God setting up His Son as a propitiation in His blood to be recieved by faith? (What if that is what is taught instead of some theory)?

 

[John of Japan]

There were many things accomplished in the Atonement... Christ's one sacrifice, one work on the Cross, all prefigured in the myriad of rites and sacrifices of the priesthood and the temple, and the law.

But the controversy Jon is raising, hidden behind all this smoke of 'agreement' he's blowing, is, was a sin debt paid? Did Christ receive the punishment due sinners on the Cross, or did He merely die a martyr's death, and then by magic sins disappear?

What say you?

I've done my best to stay out of those endless arguments on this matter, but since you ask politely, here is what I believe, and this is standard evangelical theology.

Christ "died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). The word "for" is the Greek preposition ὑπὲρ, with the object "sins" in the genitive, meaning "for the sake of" or "to atone, pay the price for something (HE 10.12)." The cross reference given here makes it clear that Christ died as a sacrifice to atone for our sins: "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." Christ atoned for all sin in all of history on the cross. Since sin demands the judgment of God, Christ took on Himself on the cross the eternal punishment in Hell of everyone who ever lived.

No one else could do this, but Christ is deity. "Paul describes Christ's work of the atonement as propitiation or the appeasement of God's wrath for the sins of humanity" (Erickson, ChristIan Theology, 3rd ed., 732. This is the standard systematic theology in Baptist seminaries nowadays.).

 

[percho]

I think the distinction would be where we see the atonement taking place. Is it the act "that brought forth the blood [life] being given [ in death] for the atonement of our souls" or the actual reconciliation taking place (that blood given [in death] for our atonement being applied to effect actual atonement).

What I mean is, we are not born reconciled to God. We are born in need of reconciliation (we need the atonement to be applied, the blood to cleans us from all unrighteousness).

If I look at the OT, there is a point where the sacrifice of atonement is offered, the blood is shed, but atonement is not yet made for the people. The priest takes the blood and "makes atonement for the sins of the people".

So I see (there are other ways of seeing it) the cross as God setting forth His Son as a propitiation through His blood. But for our individual atonement (reconciliation) to take place this must be received by faith.

In the OT when the priest took the blood and made atonement; Was that reality or was it a symbol of what Christ would do on the cross? Heb 10

I did not read far enough you answered in post 88

 

[percho]

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, Heb 5:7,8 YLT

for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God -- being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God did set forth a mercy seat [propitiation], through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God --

Reading the above; Did, Son learn the obedience of faith, of Him who had set forth Son propitiation through the faith in his blood? Does Rom 3:25 speak of the faith of God the Father rather than something that proceeds from our mind.

I have always thought Mark 11:22 should read, "of," rather than, "in". The song should be sung in the genitive also.

BTW I know this goes against most I was just wanting your thoughts.

 

[John of Japan]

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, Heb 5:7,8 YLT

Since Christ had become human, he had to learn obedience. This of course does not mean He disobeyed at some point. We have a 2 year old granddaughter, and she is daily learning what to do and what not to do at Grandpa's house. The sin that shows up in this process is disobedience (rebellion), which Jesus never committed. But our granddaughter sometimes just doesn't understand, and that is not sin.

for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God -- being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God did set forth a mercy seat [propitiation], through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God --

Reading the above; Did, Son learn the obedience of faith, of Him who had set forth Son propitiation through the faith in his blood? Does Rom 3:25 speak of the faith of God the Father rather than something that proceeds from our mind.

God does not need faith, because all faith must be directed to God! But it does speak of propitiation, which is payment for sin, which only God can do.

I have always thought Mark 11:22 should read, "of," rather than, "in". The song should be sung in the genitive also.

BTW I know this goes against most I was just wanting your thoughts.

It is possible to translate it as "faith of God." However, A. T. Robertson points out that this is the "Objective genitive theou as in Ro 3:22,26." So it is not faith that God Himself has but faith that He gives.