Justification

[JonC]

You concept of Christ and the Trinity is deficient as the Biblicist has said, and until you get it right you will not understand.

JonC, there's no point in continuing. I was most reluctant to resume this discussion because I knew how it would end, and it has. Let's leave it there. I have neither the time, the energy nor the inclination for it.

I knew there was no point in beginning, brother, except that I had hoped to press you for passages I could examine that stated your position. If Jesus separating from God's presence was such a vital doctrine, I thought perhaps there would be a verse that stated such without having to weave through it our own theories.

As so many scholars have rejected the notion that Jesus was separated from God (to include ECF's, & both dead and living Reformed theologians) I am not too worried about my lack of comprehension in this department. I say this because had I rejected your theory in isolation I would see it a cause for concern - not that men like Louis Berkhof, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Joseph Exell, John Calvin...etc.. are authorities but that they confirm my understanding so it is not beyond the pale of Reformed theology.

You also have confirmation of your idea of separation of God's presence. John Gill borders your view - if you would clarify that you do not mean the presence of God itself was severed but instead that God's graciousness (his gracious presence alone) was withdrawn as He offered His Son on the altar for all men (of course, he borders my position as well). Although not a theologian, Spurgeon also seems inclined to your position. So I have no qualms with you but just wanted to make sure there was not something I missed of your argument. It appears I haven't.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thus far your evidence has been simply that God is immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal.

I realize that continuing to reason with you is pointless. However, now you are misrepresenting the evidence I repeatedly have placed before you and which you have repeatedly ignored and still ignore. I placed irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ was MUTABLE - He grew in wisdom and knowledge - and admitted he had no knowledge of the time of his own return. This is a matter of KNOWLEDGE not circumstances, not communicable attributes, and incompatiable with the nature of God. God's incommunicable attributes are IMMUTABLE and cannot be restricted, limited or ommitted from his divine nature. It is the HUMAN nature of Christ where these limitations exist and nowhere else.

The conversation on this subject with you has been progressive. First, you have have ignored it. Second, you then attempted to make this a matter of circumstances. Third, you shifted to confusing what is non-communicable attributes with communicable attributes. Fourth, you then ignored again. Last, you now misrepresent it by leaving it out entirely and just restricting my evidences to God's immutable attributes of his nature as the whole of my evidence.


You have not answered this evidence, YOU CANNOT answer this evidence and YOU KNOW IT. And neither CAN I force you to. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still - regardless of how much evidence you put squarely in his face.

Did Jesus limit himself? Yes. Did this mean that Jesus was using his "human nature" and not his "divine nature"? No, that is absurd. Jesus' human nature was never in contradiction with his divine nature (Jesus was without sin). If we were without sin then we also would not have a nature contrary to God.

Another equally ridiculous response. Jesus does not "use" his human nature or "use" his divine nature. They are equally both contained within his ONE PERSON and they cannot be MIXED as you theory demands or else you humanize diviinity or divinize humanity. I say again, your rationale is precisely like that of the JW's as your are incapable of understand that ONE PERSON can have two co-existing natures just as ONE GOD can have three co-existing Persons without confusion of Persons or in this case confusion of natures. It is just that simple. Your thought processes with a dual nature in one person are exactly as the JW's thought processes with triune Persons in ONE GOD.

And I hope that you NEVER reject the belief that Jesus is both God and man.

YOU ARE REJECTING IT because your very theory denies any distinction between the two but merges them into a divine humanity that has no distinction between divinity and humanity. Your theory humanizes his diety and defies his humanity which in reality denies both.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, I am saying that Jesus is God. Laying aside attributes is not the same as taking on a new nature.-

Immutable divinity cannot lay aside non-communicable attributes or God ceases to be God. Think about it! The laying aside is in regard to his HUMANITY. He simply did not deify his humanity. Such incommuicable attributes were not partaken of by his humanity. His humanity did not become immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

Only God is Holy. Was Jesus unholy when he did things "humanly"?

This statement is a lie (I did not call you a liar). Holiness is a communicable attribute which both humans and angels partake of it or the command "Be YE holy EVEN AS I am holy" means nothing!

I am not arguing,

Yes you are and it is quite obvious you are just arguing because you are forced to ignore or misrepresent all Biblical evidence placed before(that evidence is once again spelled out in black in white in my previous post).

 

[JonC]

Immutable divinity cannot lay aside non-communicable attributes or God ceases to be God. Think about it! The laying aside is in regard to his HUMANITY. He simply did not deify his humanity. Such incommuicable attributes were not partaken of by his humanity. His humanity did not become immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.




This statement is a lie (I did not call you a liar). Holiness is a communicable attribute which both humans and angels partake of it or the command "Be YE holy EVEN AS I am holy" means nothing!

Yes you are and it is quite obvious you are just arguing because you are forced to ignore or misrepresent all Biblical evidence placed before(that evidence is once again spelled out in black in white in my previous post).

Yes, Christ was mutable both physically (growth) and mentally to the extent that He learned and grew in wisdom. I am not denying that at all. But this does not change his nature any more than the mutable actions of God towards Israel reflected some change in the divine nature. On the contrary, God’s actions changed because God’s nature is immutable. Jesus’ nature was immutable as He is eternally one with God. There is no passage of scripture that affirms Christ laid aside the divine nature or that he took upon himself a human nature. He took upon himself humanity, flesh, and was tempted in all ways but without sin. Divine human nature, if you like.

My argument is the same and has been from the start. Any shift has been on your trying to justify an extra-biblical theory. My argument is that Jesus could never separate from God’s presence because where Jesus was (walking on water, eating with sinners, crying for a friend, laughing, running, singing hymns, and hanging on a cross) so also was God’s presence because Jesus is God. And you know what? Scripture affirms that. It does not affirm Jesus separating from God’s presence simply because it adheres to the belief that Jesus is God.

Now, I do admit that I have argued in extremes in order to see what your best argument would be. I do not know how far you take your view. But if you believe that Jesus experienced our punishment in terms of being separated from God’s presence in terms of His love and his sustaining grace then I do not know of many who would agree (except perhaps here). The closest you can come to agreement seems to be John Gill – but he sees this forsakenness as God withdrawing his graciousness (Jesus experiencing a sense of separation from God’s gracious presence). But even Gill denounces the view that Jesus separated from God (and from God as in the spiritual death of Hell...i.e., from his love).

For the record, I again note my position is supported of all of those John's - John Calvin, John Gill, John Piper, John the Apostle and J.I. Packer, Louis Berkhof, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Joseph Exel...to name a few. I know that you and I cannot reason together here, but please read what they say. Then perhaps we can have a more meaningful discussion.

 

[The Biblicist]

Those who deny a SINGLE NATURE or A FUSED Nature in Christ but teach ONE PERSON with TWO natures without fusing them into one nature but two coexisting natures in one person.

JOHN PIPER on TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON:

"Jesus has two complete natures—one fully human and one fully divine. What the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches is that these two natures are united in one person in the God-man. Jesus is not two persons. He is one person. The hypostatic union is the joining of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus." - John Piper "What is the Hypostatic Union?"

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-is-the-hypostatic-union

BERKHOF on HYPOSTATIC UNION

"The one divine person, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both. This must be maintained over against those who, while admitting that the divine person assumed a human nature, jeopardize the integrity of the two natures by conceiving of them as having been fused or mixed into a teritum quid, a sort of divine-human nature." - L. Berkhof, Systematic Theoglogy, [Eerdman, Grand Rapids, MI. 1974) p. 322

JOHN CALVIN on the HYPOSTATIC UNION

"The tendency of this crafty device is to make out, by destroying the distinction of the two natures, that Christ is somewhat compoased of God and man, and yet is not to be deemed God and man....by hypostatic union, - a term used by ancient writers to denote the union which of two natures constitutes one person, and invented to refute the dream of Nestorius, who pretended that the Son of God dwelt in the flesh in such a manner as not to be at the same time man" -John Calvin, Calvin's Institutes, Two, Chapter XIV. 5.

 

[JonC]

Those who deny a SINGLE NATURE or A FUSED Nature in Christ but teach ONE PERSON with TWO natures without fusing them into one nature but two coexisting natures in one person.

JOHN PIPER on TWO NATURES IN ONE PERSON:

"Jesus has two complete natures—one fully human and one fully divine. What the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches is that these two natures are united in one person in the God-man. Jesus is not two persons. He is one person. The hypostatic union is the joining of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus." - John Piper "What is the Hypostatic Union?"

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-is-the-hypostatic-union

BERKHOF on HYPOSTATIC UNION

"The one divine person, who possessed a divine nature from eternity, assumed a human nature, and now has both. This must be maintained over against those who, while admitting that the divine person assumed a human nature, jeopardize the integrity of the two natures by conceiving of them as having been fused or mixed into a teritum quid, a sort of divine-human nature." - L. Berkhof, Systematic Theoglogy, [Eerdman, Grand Rapids, MI. 1974) p. 322

JOHN CALVIN on the HYPOSTATIC UNION

"The tendency of this crafty device is to make out, by destroying the distinction of the two natures, that Christ is somewhat compoased of God and man, and yet is not to be deemed God and man....by hypostatic union, - a term used by ancient writers to denote the union which of two natures constitutes one person, and invented to refute the dream of Nestorius, who pretended that the Son of God dwelt in the flesh in such a manner as not to be at the same time man" -John Calvin, Calvin's Institutes, Two, Chapter XIV. 5.

I thought you were saying this was a "fused" nature. I'm saying Jesus didn't bounce between natures. One nature God-man (two in that genuinely human, genuinely God, no mixture ...God-man). But regardless, my argument was not this diversion but your claim Jesus separated from God's presence... something Piper, Gill, Berkhof, Calvin, Beza, and Packet has denied.

 

[JonC]

Those who deny a SINGLE NATURE or A FUSED .....

Those who deny a SINGLE NATURE or A FUSED .....

I said early on that I am not so concerned about our understanding of the hypostatic union, about the two natures, etc., as I am the fruits of that doctrine.

I tire of being treated as if I have somehow invented a view or found an old heresy. I am not alone in this view the two of you find so strange. Here are a few more that deny the unqualified comment that Jesus was separated from God's presence.

Adam Clarke

Some suppose "that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins." But this is by no means to be admitted, as it would deprive his sacrifice of its infinite merit, and consequently leave the sin of the world without an atonement. Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined….. That the words could not be used by our Lord in the sense in which they are generally understood. This is sufficiently evident; for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Deity, however, might restrain so much of its consolatory support as to leave the human nature fully sensible of all its sufferings, so that the consolations might not take off any part of the keen edge of his passion; and this was necessary to make his sufferings meritorious. And it is probable that this is all that is intended by our Lord's quotation from the twenty-second Psalm. Taken in this view, the words convey an unexceptionable sense, even in the common translation. Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 27:46"


John Gill

When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.
Gill, John, The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible


John Calvin

We have likewise pointed out the distinction between the sentiment of nature and the knowledge of faith; and, there ore, the perception of God’s estrangement from him, which Christ had, as suggested by natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith that God was reconciled to him. This is sufficiently evident from the two clauses of the complaint; for, before stating the temptation, he begins by saying that he betakes himself to God as his God, and thus by the shield of faith he courageously expels that appearance of forsaking which presented itself on the other side. In short, during this fearful torture his faith remained uninjured, so that, while he complained of being forsaken, he still relied on the aid of God as at hand. Calvin, John. "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible".


Louis Berkhof

Eternal death in the case of Christ did not consist of an abrogation of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor in the divine nature’s being forsaken of God, nor in the withdrawal of the Father’s divine love or good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave; the divine nature could not possibly be forsaken of God; and the person of the Mediator was and ever continued to be the object of divine favor. It revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of God-forsakenness. This implies that the human nature for a moment missed the conscious comfort which it might derive from its union with the divine Logos, and the sense of divine love, and was painfully conscious of the fullness of the divine wrath which was bearing down upon it. Yet there was no despair, for even in the darkest hour, while He exclaims that He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God. Berkhof,Louis Systematic Theology


John Trapp

Therefore he laid down his life at his own pleasure; for by his loud outcry it appears that he could have lived longer if he had listed, for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body, but much greater in his soul. That which for the present seems to have expressed from him this doleful complaint, was the sense of his Father’s wrath in the darkening of the body of the sun over him; which though God causeth to shine upon the just and unjust for their comfort, yet was not suffered to shine upon him for those three sorrowful hours together. Trapp, John. John Trapp Complete Commentary


Thomas Coke

The truth is, his words on the cross cannot be accounted for, but on the supposition that he suffered in his mind pains inexpressible, inflicted on him by an immediate interposition of the power of God, the nature and intenseness of which cannot in the language of men be more justly, or more emphatically expressed, than by the metaphor of God's forsaking him
Coke, Thomas. Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible


Albert Barnes

This expression is one denoting intense suffering. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken by God.” It is certain that God approved his work. It is certain that he was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As his own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved him. In either of these senses God could not have forsaken him. Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Matthew 27:46".


Joseph Exell

To what end all this forsaking of Christ was. Christ was forsaken in regard of His present comfort and joy, and He positively felt the wrath and fury of the Almighty, whose just displeasure seized upon His soul for sin….These words do not imply, on the part of the Father, an entire and perpetual abandonment of His Son. Exell, Joseph S. The Biblical Illustrator.


John Wesley

About the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice - Our Lord's great agony probably continued these three whole hours, at the conclusion of which be thus cried out, while he suffered from God himself what was unutterable. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Our Lord hereby at once expresses his trust in God, and a most distressing sense of his letting loose the powers of darkness upon him, withdrawing the comfortable discoveries of his presence, and filling his soul with a terrible sense of the wrath due to the sins which he was bearing. Psalm 22:1 . Wesley, John. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes


Theodore Beza

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou o forsaken me?
That is, in this misery: And this crying out is a natural part of his humanity, which, even though it was void of sin, still felt the wrath of God, the wrath which is due to our sins.
Beza, Theodore"The 1599 Geneva Study Bible

Heinrich Meyer

In ἐγκατέλιπες Jesus expressed, of course, what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He was in fellowship God had for the moment given way under the pressure of extreme bodily and mental suffering, and a mere passing feeling as though He were no longer sustained by the power of the divine life had taken its place (comp. Gess, p. 196); but this subjective feeling must not be confounded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the case of Jesus would have been a meta-physical and moral impossibility.
Meyer, Heinrich. Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

 

[JonC]

Those who deny a SINGLE NATURE or A FUSED .....

Those who deny a SINGLE NATURE or A FUSED .....

I ran out of space, but continuing I hope that at least one of these will resonate at least enough that you can understand my position and that it is not some doctrine sprung out of a lack of understanding. You may well think all these men heretics, and if so then so be it - on this topic I am in well company.

John Owen

First, the Father promises to protect and assist the Son in accomplishing and perfectly fulfilling the whole dispensation in which he was employed, or which he was about to undertake. Upon undertaking this great work of redemption, the Father engaged himself that the Son would not lack any assistance in his trials. He would not lack strength against opposition, encouragement against temptations, nor strong consolation in the midst of terrors. He would not lack whatever might be necessary or requisite in any way to carry him on through all difficulties to the end of so great an employment. Upon this promise, the Son undertakes this heavy burden which is so full of misery and trouble. For the Father, before this engagement, requires no less of him than that he “become a Savior, and be afflicted in all the affliction of his people,” Isa. 63:8, 9. Although he is “the fellow of the LORD of hosts,” he would endure the “sword” that was drawn against him as the “shepherd” of the sheep, Zech. 13:7; “treading the winepress alone, until he became red in his apparel,” Isa. 63:2, 3. He would be “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; to be bruised and put to grief; to make his soul an offering for sin, and to bear the iniquity of many,” Isa 53. He is to be destitute of comfort so far as to cry, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Ps. 22:1. Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

In fact, Owen's book has been of such importance to me that I can't help but offer the link. I hope at least you will consider his words even if you never agree: http://www.apuritansmind.com/wp-con...heDeathofDeathintheDeathofChrist-JohnOwen.pdf

Joel Beeke

Jesus’ cry does not in any way diminish His deity. Jesus does not cease being God before, during, or after this. Jesus’ cry does not divide His human nature from His divine person or destroy the Trinity. Nor does it detach Him from the Holy Spirit. The Son lacks the comforts of the Spirit, but He does not lose the holiness of the Spirit. And finally, it does not cause Him to disavow His mission. Both the Father and Son knew from all eternity that Jesus would become the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (Acts 15:18). It is unthinkable that the Son of God might question what is happening or be perplexed when His Father’s loving presence departs.

Jesus is expressing the agony of unanswered supplication (Ps. 22:1–2). Unanswered, Jesus feels forgotten of God. He is also expressing the agony of unbearable stress. It is the kind of “roaring” mentioned in Psalm 22: the roar of desperate agony without rebellion. It is the hellish cry uttered when the undiluted wrath of God overwhelms the soul. It is heart-piercing, heaven-piercing, and hell-piercing. Further, Jesus is expressing the agony of unmitigated sin. All the sins of the elect, and the hell that they deserve for eternity, are laid upon Him. And Jesus is expressing the agony of unassisted solitariness. In His hour of greatest need comes a pain unlike anything the Son has ever experienced: His Father’s abandonment. When Jesus most needs encouragement, no voice cries from heaven, “This is my beloved Son.” No angel is sent to strengthen Him; no “well done, thou good and faithful servant” resounds in His ears. The women who supported Him are silent. The disciples, cowardly and terrified, have fled. Feeling disowned by all, Jesus endures the way of suffering alone, deserted, and forsaken in utter darkness. Every detail of this horrific abandonment declares the heinous character of our sins! Beeke, Joel. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/christ-forsaken/

John MacArthur

When Christ was forsaken by the Father, their separation was not one of nature, essence, or substance. Christ did not in any sense or degree cease to exist as God or as a member of the Trinity. He did not cease to be the Son, any more than a child who sins severely against his human father ceases to be his child. But Jesus did for a while cease to know the intimacy of fellowship with His heavenly Father, just as a disobedient child ceases for a while to have intimate, normal, loving fellowship with his human father.
MacArthur, John. https://www.gty.org/resources/print/bible-qna/BQ032913

None of these men teach that on the cross Jesus experienced a separation from God's presence for 3 hours as a spiritual death that we would have encountered being separated from God. If my view is wrong here, at least I am wrong in good company (it isn't, as you imply, a lack of scholarship on my part).

 

[The Biblicist]

John MacArthur

When Christ was forsaken by the Father, their separation was not one of nature, essence, or substance. Christ did not in any sense or degree cease to exist as God or as a member of the Trinity. He did not cease to be the Son, any more than a child who sins severely against his human father ceases to be his child. But Jesus did for a while cease to know the intimacy of fellowship with His heavenly Father, just as a disobedient child ceases for a while to have intimate, normal, loving fellowship with his human father.
MacArthur, John. https://www.gty.org/resources/print/bible-qna/BQ032913

The following are quotes from my own posts showing I am saying the very same thing MacArthur said above:

If the human Jesus could repeatedly tell others that he was obedient to the Father and in fellowship with the Father, then, why could he not in his humanity experience break of fellowship with the Father due to imputed sin? When we sin we experience break of fellowship with the Father without losing spiritual union with God don't we? Why could not Jesus as a man suffer disfellowship with his Father without ceasing to be God. Can the human Jesus experience spiritual growth without ceasing to be God, and therefore suffer break in fellowship in his human spirit without ceasing to be God?? POST #56


Again, if Jesus can grow in knowledge as a man without ceasing to be the omnipresent God, why can't he as a man also suffer experiential disfellowship with the Father without ceasing to be God? If one, why not the other? Both limitations are found in his humanity not his deity OR do you believe his mutable knowledge as a man made the nature of God mutable as well?
Just as three distinguishable Persons CO-EXIST in ONE GOD without confusion of persons, so two distinguishable natures CO-EXIST in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures. – Post #61

None of these men teach that on the cross Jesus experienced a separation from God's presence for 3 hours as a spiritual death that we would have encountered being separated from God. If my view is wrong here, at least I am wrong in good company (it isn't, as you imply, a lack of scholarship on my part).

It is one thing to claim Christ can be separated from God's presence in the sense of separation from his NATURE and quite another thing to claim he can be separated from God's presence in the sense of experiential fellowship or the sense of his presence.

The former requires Christ to be divided from himself or cease being deity, while the latter says nothing more than what already has occurred in his humanity where his complete deity was not experienced as in growing in knowledge as a man, and thus as a man he experientially was separated from the Father in the sense of fellowship on the cross without ceasing to be divine.

 

[JonC]

The following are quotes from my own posts showing I am saying the very same thing MacArthur said above:

If the human Jesus could repeatedly tell others that he was obedient to the Father and in fellowship with the Father, then, why could he not in his humanity experience break of fellowship with the Father due to imputed sin? When we sin we experience break of fellowship with the Father without losing spiritual union with God don't we? Why could not Jesus as a man suffer disfellowship with his Father without ceasing to be God. Can the human Jesus experience spiritual growth without ceasing to be God, and therefore suffer break in fellowship in his human spirit without ceasing to be God?? POST #56


Again, if Jesus can grow in knowledge as a man without ceasing to be the omnipresent God, why can't he as a man also suffer experiential disfellowship with the Father without ceasing to be God? If one, why not the other? Both limitations are found in his humanity not his deity OR do you believe his mutable knowledge as a man made the nature of God mutable as well?
Just as three distinguishable Persons CO-EXIST in ONE GOD without confusion of persons, so two distinguishable natures CO-EXIST in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures. – Post #61





It is one thing to claim Christ can be separated from God's presence in the sense of separation from his NATURE and quite another thing to claim he can be separated from God's presence in the sense of experiential fellowship or the sense of his presence.

The former requires Christ to be divided from himself or cease being deity, while the latter says nothing more than what already has occurred in his humanity where his complete deity was not experienced as in growing in knowledge as a man, and thus as a man he experientially was separated from the Father in the sense of fellowship on the cross without ceasing to be divine.

We may be talking past each other, brother, and if so you have my apology. Insofar as the two natures, I am only insisting that "without division" not be left out of the equation. Insofar as this "separation", my argument started before our dialogue so I could very well have missed something in our conversation.

My original objection was that Jesus experienced what we would have experienced apart from redemption in terms of being separated from God (literally the separation from God in Hell as a spiritual death). I was still working off of that understanding. But on the cross Jesus was not separated from God in that way (He was not separated from the Spirit of God, the love of God, etc.). What was withdrawn was that comfort - or as Gill states, that sense of God's gracious presence.

It was not my intent to say that the Father did not withdraw such from Jesus (that is what I understand "forsake" to mean in this passage). But merely stating the Jesus was separated from God's presence is not the same as stating He was separated from God's comfort, or sense of gracious presence. In other words, Jesus did not experience the separation that we would have experienced as the second death because God's Spirit was not withdrawn. His love was not withdrawn. His presence was not withdrawn (in any of those ways).

To clarify what was presented by "fellowship", it was not presence itself but the presence of in a particular way (MacArthur uses the illustration of a parent withdrawing favor to a disobedient child). What is broken is that intimate fellowship (not presence itself but that sense of favor, of comfort, of graciousness as this is replaced with the Father laying our sins upon His Son and offering Him a guilt offering).

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, Christ was mutable both physically (growth) and mentally to the extent that He learned and grew in wisdom. I am not denying that at all. But this does not change his nature any more than the mutable actions of God towards Israel reflected some change in the divine nature.

You are confusing things again that should not be confused. What prominent theologians will agree with you on that statement???? You confuse his human nature wherein he grew in knowledge with his divine nature who is omniscient is not capable of growth in knowledge because the divine nature is immutable. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR IMMUTABLE OMNISCIENCE TO GROW IN WISDOM OR KNOWLEDGE - UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE. You then confuse "actions" with "attributes" just as you previously confused "circumstances" with "attributes." You obviously do not understand or don't recognize the difference between communicable and non-communicable attributes. If you did we would not be having this debate and you would not be saying much of the things you have been saying. Please go read Berkhof or any other prominent theologian on the difference between communicable and non-communicable attributes and then why some attributes, like omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnincience are immutable and non-transferrable to creatures. The humanity of Christ is not divine because if it were it would be omniscient and never need to "GROW" in wisdom or knowledge. The fact that he did "grow" in these thing is proof that there is more than one nature in the one Person of Christ, a nature you are denying - the human nature. You cannot attribute this growth in knowledge or wisdom to circumstances or to actions or to anything less than complete human nature that is not divine.

Jesus’ nature was immutable as He is eternally one with God. There is no passage of scripture that affirms Christ laid aside the divine nature or that he took upon himself a human nature. He took upon himself humanity, flesh, and was tempted in all ways but without sin. Divine human nature, if you like.

You cannot take upon "humanity" without taking upon the human nature as humanity has no existence from human nature! The "humanity" of Christ is what "grew in wisdom and knowledge" and it is the"humanity" of Christ that did not know the time of His own return" and the "humanity" of Christ is NOT IMMUTABLE as these very things prove! Again, you need to differ between communicable and non-communicable attributes and omniscience is a NON-COMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE, but Christ's growth in knowledge proves this was an aspect of his "humanity" thus "human nature" which is not immutable. Just think it through. Is your "humanity" (any aspect of it) immutable? He tabernacled
"in the flesh" which is a synonym for the HUMAN NATURE. He "partook" of "the form" and "likeness" of men which means he assumed a human nature which is HUMANITY - human mind, human will, human emotions, human body, human soul, human spirit, total humanity except for indwelling sin.

My argument is the same and has been from the start. Any shift has been on your trying to justify an extra-biblical theory. My argument is that Jesus could never separate from God’s presence because where Jesus was (walking on water, eating with sinners, crying for a friend, laughing, running, singing hymns, and hanging on a cross) so also was God’s presence because Jesus is God. And you know what? Scripture affirms that. It does not affirm Jesus separating from God’s presence simply because it adheres to the belief that Jesus is God.

Your arguments have not been the same from the start as you have admitted you went to "extremes" just to see my responses (next paragraph). Your theologians don't agree with your position. The vast majority claim Christ had TWO DISTINCT NATURES - one human and one divine but both contained in ONE PERSON. You just denied that is your position in the preceding paragraph. You reject "human nature" and you reject TWO natures and so you reject the vast majority of those whom you are quoting for support.

You don't seem to understand that Christ in his "humanity" (human nature) can suffer even the sense of disfellowship, or experiential sense of absence of the Father's presence just as John MacArthur explicitly states in your quotation of him.

I have NEVER claimed that Christ ceased to be divine on the cross at any point. I have NEVER claimed that Christ ceased to be human on the cross at any point. I have NEVER argued that his divinity left his body or he ceased being divine at any point on the cross. I have argued nothing more than what MacArthur argues and I have proven that by requoting past statement from my previous posts to prove that was my consistent argument.

For the record, I again note my position is supported of all of those John's - John Calvin, John Gill, John Piper, John the Apostle and J.I. Packer, Louis Berkhof, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Joseph Exel...to name a few. I know that you and I cannot reason together here, but please read what they say. Then perhaps we can have a more meaningful discussion.

No, they don't support you. They don't support your theory that there were not two distinct natures in Christ. They don't support your theory that there was not some kind of separation between Christ and his Father on the cross. They don't deny that Christ could be experientially separated from the blessings of the sense of the Father's presence due to being made sin.

I have never argued that Christ was separated from himself as though he ceased to be divine on the cross. I have argued that in his "humanity" (human nature) he experienced the sense of separation from "THE FATHER" not from himself.

 

[The Biblicist]

We may be talking past each other, brother, and if so you have my apology. Insofar as the two natures, I am only insisting that "without division" not be left out of the equation. Insofar as this "separation", my argument started before our dialogue so I could very well have missed something in our conversation.

My original objection was that Jesus experienced what we would have experienced apart from redemption in terms of being separated from God (literally the separation from God in Hell as a spiritual death). I was still working off of that understanding. But on the cross Jesus was not separated from God in that way (He was not separated from the Spirit of God, the love of God, etc.). What was withdrawn was that comfort - or as Gill states, that sense of God's gracious presence.

It was not my intent to say that the Father did not withdraw such from Jesus (that is what I understand "forsake" to mean in this passage). But merely stating the Jesus was separated from God's presence is not the same as stating He was separated from God's comfort, or sense of gracious presence. In other words, Jesus did not experience the separation that we would have experienced as the second death because God's Spirit was not withdrawn. His love was not withdrawn. His presence was not withdrawn (in any of those ways).

To clarify what was presented by "fellowship", it was not presence itself but the presence of in a particular way (MacArthur uses the illustration of a parent withdrawing favor to a disobedient child). What is broken is that intimate fellowship (not presence itself but that sense of favor, of comfort, of graciousness as this is replaced with the Father laying our sins upon His Son and offering Him a guilt offering).

That is precisely my position with regard to separation on the cross. However, I still have a problem with your statement "Insofar as the two natures, I am only insisting that 'without division" not be left out of the equation." Please notice that your authorities support an abiding distinction between two natures but "without separation" with regard to his ONE PERSON. So the only aspect that is "without division" is HIS PERSON - they co-exist within the same person but they are not to be confused one with the other. My quotation of Berhkof directly addresses that very issue. He claims precisely as I do, if they are merged into ONE NATURE then Christ is neither God or Man but some new kind of God who never existed prior to the incarnation. The two natures must be regarded as co-existing and distinct yet in ONE PERSON. The same is true for the Trinity. The three Persons cannot be regarded as ONE GOD in the sense of ONE PERSON but must be regarded as distinct but co-existing one with another in the ONE GOD. Likewise, the two natures cannot be regarded as ONE NATURE but must be distinguished one from the other but co-existing in ONE PERSON.

J.I. Packer does agree with your position of one nature in Christ that is indivisible, but he stands almost alone in that belief among evangelical scholars.

 

[The Biblicist]

I said early on that I am not so concerned about our understanding of the hypostatic union, about the two natures, etc., as I am the fruits of that doctrine.

I tire of being treated as if I have somehow invented a view or found an old heresy. I am not alone in this view the two of you find so strange. Here are a few more that deny the unqualified comment that Jesus was separated from God's presence.

Adam Clarke

Some suppose "that the divinity had now departed from Christ, and that his human nature was left unsupported to bear the punishment due to men for their sins." But this is by no means to be admitted, as it would deprive his sacrifice of its infinite merit, and consequently leave the sin of the world without an atonement. Take deity away from any redeeming act of Christ, and redemption is ruined….. That the words could not be used by our Lord in the sense in which they are generally understood. This is sufficiently evident; for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Deity, however, might restrain so much of its consolatory support as to leave the human nature fully sensible of all its sufferings, so that the consolations might not take off any part of the keen edge of his passion; and this was necessary to make his sufferings meritorious. And it is probable that this is all that is intended by our Lord's quotation from the twenty-second Psalm. Taken in this view, the words convey an unexceptionable sense, even in the common translation. Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 27:46"


John Gill

When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.
Gill, John, The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible


John Calvin

We have likewise pointed out the distinction between the sentiment of nature and the knowledge of faith; and, there ore, the perception of God’s estrangement from him, which Christ had, as suggested by natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith that God was reconciled to him. This is sufficiently evident from the two clauses of the complaint; for, before stating the temptation, he begins by saying that he betakes himself to God as his God, and thus by the shield of faith he courageously expels that appearance of forsaking which presented itself on the other side. In short, during this fearful torture his faith remained uninjured, so that, while he complained of being forsaken, he still relied on the aid of God as at hand. Calvin, John. "Calvin's Commentary on the Bible".


Louis Berkhof

Eternal death in the case of Christ did not consist of an abrogation of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor in the divine nature’s being forsaken of God, nor in the withdrawal of the Father’s divine love or good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave; the divine nature could not possibly be forsaken of God; and the person of the Mediator was and ever continued to be the object of divine favor. It revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of God-forsakenness. This implies that the human nature for a moment missed the conscious comfort which it might derive from its union with the divine Logos, and the sense of divine love, and was painfully conscious of the fullness of the divine wrath which was bearing down upon it. Yet there was no despair, for even in the darkest hour, while He exclaims that He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God. Berkhof,Louis Systematic Theology


John Trapp

Therefore he laid down his life at his own pleasure; for by his loud outcry it appears that he could have lived longer if he had listed, for any decay of nature under those exquisite torments that he suffered in his body, but much greater in his soul. That which for the present seems to have expressed from him this doleful complaint, was the sense of his Father’s wrath in the darkening of the body of the sun over him; which though God causeth to shine upon the just and unjust for their comfort, yet was not suffered to shine upon him for those three sorrowful hours together. Trapp, John. John Trapp Complete Commentary


Thomas Coke

The truth is, his words on the cross cannot be accounted for, but on the supposition that he suffered in his mind pains inexpressible, inflicted on him by an immediate interposition of the power of God, the nature and intenseness of which cannot in the language of men be more justly, or more emphatically expressed, than by the metaphor of God's forsaking him
Coke, Thomas. Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible


Albert Barnes

This expression is one denoting intense suffering. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken by God.” It is certain that God approved his work. It is certain that he was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As his own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved him. In either of these senses God could not have forsaken him. Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Matthew 27:46".


Joseph Exell

To what end all this forsaking of Christ was. Christ was forsaken in regard of His present comfort and joy, and He positively felt the wrath and fury of the Almighty, whose just displeasure seized upon His soul for sin….These words do not imply, on the part of the Father, an entire and perpetual abandonment of His Son. Exell, Joseph S. The Biblical Illustrator.


John Wesley

About the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice - Our Lord's great agony probably continued these three whole hours, at the conclusion of which be thus cried out, while he suffered from God himself what was unutterable. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Our Lord hereby at once expresses his trust in God, and a most distressing sense of his letting loose the powers of darkness upon him, withdrawing the comfortable discoveries of his presence, and filling his soul with a terrible sense of the wrath due to the sins which he was bearing. Psalm 22:1 . Wesley, John. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes


Theodore Beza

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou o forsaken me?
That is, in this misery: And this crying out is a natural part of his humanity, which, even though it was void of sin, still felt the wrath of God, the wrath which is due to our sins.
Beza, Theodore"The 1599 Geneva Study Bible

Heinrich Meyer

In ἐγκατέλιπες Jesus expressed, of course, what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He was in fellowship God had for the moment given way under the pressure of extreme bodily and mental suffering, and a mere passing feeling as though He were no longer sustained by the power of the divine life had taken its place (comp. Gess, p. 196); but this subjective feeling must not be confounded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the case of Jesus would have been a meta-physical and moral impossibility.
Meyer, Heinrich. Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

None of these men disagree with my view. They all admit two distinct natures co-existing in one Person but without confusing one with the other - hypostatic union.

They all agree that it was in his humanity that he suffered the subjective sense of separation from His Father's presence without ceasing to be God the Son. I think we have spoken past each other on this aspect as I see no major disagreement with you if you accept their statements on this point.

 

[JonC]

None of these men disagree with my view. They all admit two distinct natures co-existing in one Person but without confusing one with the other - hypostatic union.

They all agree that it was in his humanity that he suffered the subjective sense of separation from His Father's presence without ceasing to be God the Son. I think we have spoken past each other on this aspect as I see no major disagreement with you if you accept their statements on this point.

I accept the statements as presented by all of those people. Sometimes I think that Gibran's observation that we can give our words but not our understanding rings true and we benefit from the explanation of a third party. I was not understanding this "separation" in your view to be in that subjective sense, although I think we may disagree as I do hold "without division" insofar as the "two natures". You have my apologies for any lack of clarity on my part and for any misunderstanding that may have been viewed as venturing into the personal rather than dealing with the topic.

 

[JonC]

That is precisely my position with regard to separation on the cross. However, I still have a problem with your statement "Insofar as the two natures, I am only insisting that 'without division" not be left out of the equation." Please notice that your authorities support an abiding distinction between two natures but "without separation" with regard to his ONE PERSON. So the only aspect that is "without division" is HIS PERSON - they co-exist within the same person but they are not to be confused one with the other. My quotation of Berhkof directly addresses that very issue. He claims precisely as I do, if they are merged into ONE NATURE then Christ is neither God or Man but some new kind of God who never existed prior to the incarnation. The two natures must be regarded as co-existing and distinct yet in ONE PERSON. The same is true for the Trinity. The three Persons cannot be regarded as ONE GOD in the sense of ONE PERSON but must be regarded as distinct but co-existing one with another in the ONE GOD. Likewise, the two natures cannot be regarded as ONE NATURE but must be distinguished one from the other but co-existing in ONE PERSON.

J.I. Packer does agree with your position of one nature in Christ that is indivisible, but he stands almost alone in that belief among evangelical scholars.

I hold the Chalcedonian definition (451 AD) correct (which includes without division). That may be a difference. But to clarify, when I say Jesus had "one nature" I mean to emphasize that these two natures (God and man) are inseparable and indivisible while remaining distinct. It is not correct (in my understanding) to look at Jesus as going from a human nature to a divine nature as these two distinct natures are indivisible but distinct. (I hope that helps clarify my view). Here is the definition:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon (451)

 

[The Biblicist]

I thought you were saying this was a "fused" nature.

I can see where you may have misunderstood me with regard to one of my posts on this point. However, if you continued to read that same post and many other posts where I repeatedly stated that both natures remained distinct or co-existing in the same person. The vast majority of evangelical theologians repudiate the idea that Christ consisted of only one nature whereby humanity and divinity were fused together as one nature. They repudiate it because it necessitates a new kind of God nature coming into existence at the incarnation which had no previous existence. So most explain the dual nature of Christ just as they explain the trinune person of the Godhead. There are three distinct persons co-existing in the ONE GOD instead of just ONE PERSON, just as there are two co-existing natures in the ONE PERSON of Christ rather than ONE NATURE.

I'm saying Jesus didn't bounce between natures.

I don't know if I would use the word "bounce" but there certainly is evidence that Jesus acted apart from God consciousness at times. He seems to have two different states of consciousness, one that was limited and human and the other that was unlimited and divine and that his human consciousness was under the control of his divine consciousness. I don't know if this is the best way to explain it but it seems self-evident because at times he was not conscious of the unlimited omniscience of the divine consciousness where at other times he exercised his will in a way that was conscious of unlimited divine attributes. The answer seems to be found in the fact that his divine state of consciousness exercised control over the human state of consciousness permitting his humanity only limited consciousness of the divine attributes and power.

One nature God-man (two in that genuinely human, genuinely God, no mixture ...God-man).

May I make a suggestion and reword your above sentence to read "One PERSON God man (two natures, making him genuinely human and genuinely God, no mixture of natures in one Person).

But regardless, my argument was not this diversion but your claim Jesus separated from God's presence... something Piper, Gill, Berkhof, Calvin, Beza, and Packet has denied.

I really don't think we disagree on this issue. I think you simply read past me and failed to see what I was saying. I said nothing more or less than what all these men you quote said.

 

[The Biblicist]

I hold the Chalcedonian definition (451 AD) correct (which includes without division). That may be a difference. But to clarify, when I say Jesus had "one nature" I mean to emphasize that these two natures (God and man) are inseparable and indivisible while remaining distinct. It is not correct (in my understanding) to look at Jesus as going from a human nature to a divine nature as these two distinct natures are indivisible but distinct. (I hope that helps clarify my view). Here is the definition:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon (451)

Of course I don't agree with all of this statement (e.g. "Mother of God") and I am not sure I agree with all the language as it is applied or perhaps understood by you.

If by this statement they mean THE PERSON of Christ consisting of two natures is unchangable, indivisible, inseparable, etc., then I completely agree. But if they mean THE TWO NATURES are such then I wholly disagree as the Biblical evidence demonstrates they are separable and divisible in his one Person and that the humanity (human nature) is changable not merely in actions and physical growth, but in incommunicable attributes wherein the divine nature is not changable - actual knowledge and wisdom.

 

[JonC]

I can see where you may have misunderstood me with regard to one of my posts on this point. However, if you continued to read that same post and many other posts where I repeatedly stated that both natures remained distinct or co-existing in the same person. The vast majority of evangelical theologians repudiate the idea that Christ consisted of only one nature whereby humanity and divinity were fused together as one nature. They repudiate it because it necessitates a new kind of God nature coming into existence at the incarnation which had no previous existence. So most explain the dual nature of Christ just as they explain the trinune person of the Godhead. There are three distinct persons co-existing in the ONE GOD instead of just ONE PERSON, just as there are two co-existing natures in the ONE PERSON of Christ rather than ONE NATURE.




I don't know if I would use the word "bounce" but there certainly is evidence that Jesus acted apart from God consciousness at times. He seems to have two different states of consciousness, one that was limited and human and the other that was unlimited and divine and that his human consciousness was under the control of his divine consciousness. I don't know if this is the best way to explain it but it seems self-evident because at times he was not conscious of the unlimited omniscience of the divine consciousness where at other times he exercised his will in a way that was conscious of unlimited divine attributes. The answer seems to be found in the fact that his divine state of consciousness exercised control over the human state of consciousness permitting his humanity only limited consciousness of the divine attributes and power.



May I make a suggestion and reword your above sentence to read "One PERSON God man (two natures, making him genuinely human and genuinely God, no mixture of natures in one Person).





I really don't think we disagree on this issue. I think you simply read past me and failed to see what I was saying. I said nothing more or less than what all these men you quote said.

You didn't use the word "bounce", but that was my understanding.

I do believe that Jesus' life was one of submission to the Father. So those things that reflect the divine nature (e.g., omnipotence with the loaves and fish, healings, calming the storm; omniscience in knowing what is in the heart of man, etc) was a reliance on the Spirit and not necessarily relying on His own divinity as such. But I also grant that there is room for disagreement here.

I also appreciate and agree with the suggestion that I may need to reword not only that sentence but much of my argument.

 

[JonC]

Of course I don't agree with all of this statement (e.g. "Mother of God") and I am not sure I agree with all the language as it is applied or perhaps understood by you.

If by this statement they mean THE PERSON of Christ consisting of two natures is unchangable, indivisible, inseparable, etc., then I completely agree. But if they mean THE TWO NATURES are such then I wholly disagree as the Biblical evidence demonstrates they are separable and divisible in his one Person and that the humanity (human nature) is changable not merely in actions and physical growth, but in incommunicable attributes wherein the divine nature is not changable - actual knowledge and wisdom.

My understanding is that they mean the two natures are indivisible and inseparable (they were combating the heresy of a mixed/hybrid nature). Given what would come later with RCC heresy, I understand your objection to the wording of "mother of God". The creed refers to a physical and human birth ("according to manhood"), although even here it does seem to highlight the natures as being indivisible in that Mary mothered Jesus as indivisibly God/man (so I can understand your objection here as well). I agree with the creed and appreciate that it was the statement of orthodoxy for centuries, but even here I think that there is room for discussion and disagreement.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html

 

[Van]

Yes, Van. I am saying that we are not "justified" by a declaration as a work of God. We are justified "in Christ" (a declaration declares something that has happened). That said, we are also declared "right" and there is something by which justification or righteousness is measured. My question is if that act whereby God makes us "right" (forgiveness, regeneration, salvation, how ever we want to explore it) has in mind a moral "rightness" based on the Law or a "rightness" associated with God's covenant with Abraham.

Thanks for trying to clarify your view. When God puts us positionally into Christ, we undergo the Circumcision of Christ where our sin burden (whatever our God had or would have held against us) is continually removed. Thus we are "justified in Christ" if that was what you were saying. We are made perfect, not declared perfect. And to be perfect is to be faultless and thus righteous.

No flesh is justified by the Law. But we are justified through faith. All this means is if God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, then He puts us positionally into Christ where we undergo the washing of regeneration and are thus justified "through faith."