Propitiation

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 PM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We have a salvation apart from the Law because Christ was obedient to the Father, even to death and lay down His life as a guilt offering, that all who believe would live. Not because he perfectly obeyed he Mosaic Law (which pointed to His righteousness, not formed a list of tasks for Him to obey in order to win salvation) but because He fulfilled it in Himself. That is the difference between fulfilling (the Law pointed to Christ) and obeying (Christ pointed to the Law).

'By one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous' (Romans 5:19). Christ was not merely obedient in death, He was 'obedient unto death' (Philippians 2:8). "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46). We may be sure that if He had left one duty of the law undone, the Pharisees would have spotted it. "I always do the things that please [the Father]" (John 8:29).

You have it backwards.

You, I'm sorry to say, do not have it at all.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; that He Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. In other words, Christ died for all so that those of us who believe will not live for ourselves but for Christ who died and rose again on our behalf.

Leaving aside the question of the meaning of 'world' and 'all,' you have it somewhere nearly right, but Jesus is the 'Lamb without spot or blemish' (1 Peter 1:19). The physical perfections of the sacrificial animals in the Old Covenant (e.g. Leviticus 22:21) points to the moral and spiritual perfections of our Lord-- 'holy, harmless and undefiled' (Hebrews 7:26). Christ's work of satisfaction to the Father lasted His whole life on earth

Christ work encompasses more than His death but looks to Christ becoming flesh, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and humbling Himself in obedience even to the Cross.

Yes.

It is apart from the Law that the righteousness of God has been manifested, and this to what the Law itself and the Prophets bore testimony. We are justified as a gift by God’s grace through the redemption in Christ, Who God displayed as a propitiation in His blood through faith. The Law here is established in being fulfilled in Christ. Those who are not saved are condemned because they have not believed in Christ.

This seems to be what you denied earlier on. We have a salvation apart from the law because Christ has perfectly kept it on our behalf as our surety (Hebrews 7:22). A 'surety' is one who agrees to undertake for another who is unable to discharge his own obligation. We are unable to keep the law ourselves, so Christ our surety has kept it on our behalf. We owe God a satisfaction for our sins; "Assuredly I say to you, you will by no means get out of there until you have paid the last penny" (Matthew 5:26). Christ has paid our debt in full on the cross. Ah! Praise the Lord for penal substitution! No hope without it!

Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. We have a gospel “with feet”, one that demands action, for by His wounds we were healed. We were purchased with a price, ransomed from the bondage of sin and death.

Jesus was delivered over to the Jews, who despised Him and considered him stricken by God, by the predetermined plan of God. It was by the hands of these godless men that He was nailed to a cross and put to death. Christ gave Himself as a guilt offering, and by His stripes we are healed.

Amen! 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.' 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' God, in the Person of Christ, gave Himself to suffer instead of us the death punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Praise His Name!

 

[JonC]

'By one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous' (Romans 5:19). Christ was not merely obedient in death, He was 'obedient unto death' (Philippians 2:8). "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (John 8:46). We may be sure that if He had left one duty of the law undone, the Pharisees would have spotted it. "I always do the things that please [the Father]" (John 8:29).
You, I'm sorry to say, do not have it at all.

Leaving aside the question of the meaning of 'world' and 'all,' you have it somewhere nearly right, but Jesus is the 'Lamb without spot or blemish' (1 Peter 1:19). The physical perfections of the sacrificial animals in the Old Covenant (e.g. Leviticus 22:21) points to the moral and spiritual perfections of our Lord-- 'holy, harmless and undefiled' (Hebrews 7:26). Christ's work of satisfaction to the Father lasted His whole life on earth
Yes.

This seems to be what you denied earlier on. We have a salvation apart from the law because Christ has perfectly kept it on our behalf as our surety (Hebrews 7:22). A 'surety' is one who agrees to undertake for another who is unable to discharge his own obligation. We are unable to keep the law ourselves, so Christ our surety has kept it on our behalf. We owe God a satisfaction for our sins; "Assuredly I say to you, you will by no means get out of there until you have paid the last penny" (Matthew 5:26). Christ has paid our debt in full on the cross. Ah! Praise the Lord for penal substitution! No hope without it!

Amen! 'He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.' 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.' God, in the Person of Christ, gave Himself to suffer instead of us the death punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Praise His Name!

Again, you are interpreting Scripture by providing for it an extra-biblical context and adding to the text. For example:

Hebrews 7:18-22 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, "THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'"); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

DOES NOT say that Jesus secured our salvation by perfectly keeping the Law. You are not only missing the game but you are in the wrong ball park when you look to the Law as the vehicle for salvation. Do you not see that you are adding "because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law"????? The Law and the prophets testified to Christ, not the other way around. You have it backwards.

And I already told you that if statements like Christ bearing our sins and becoming a curse for us means, in your mind, PSA then you have no reason to fret. Every Christian had believed that, so by your standard every Christian has believed PSA, even those who don't know it and even those who deny that God punished Jesus for our sins. C.S. Lewis held to Christus Victor....and PSA. Grotius held to the Moral Influence Theory and PSA. Luther held to Substitution and PSA. Aquinas held to Satisfaction and PSA. Origen held to the Ransom theory and PSA. N.T. Wright holds to Christus Victor and PSA. Irenaeus held to Recapitulation and PSA. Justin Martyr held to a pre-Recapitulation/Christus Victor theory and PSA.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am going out in just a moment and the thread will probably be closed when I get back, but you misunderstand the very nature of God. 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God of Hosts.' He cannot deny Himself ( 1 Timothy 2:13). Why is there no remission of sins without the shedding of blood? Because of the holiness of God. '.....by no means clearing the guilty.' Unless Christ is our surety, there is no hope for any of us. He must drink the cup of God's wrath, and drink it down to the very dregs.

This is what troubled Trypho: how could the Christ be made a curse? And it is what Justin explained, if you had but eyes to see.

 

[agedman]

I am going out in just a moment and the thread will probably be closed when I get back, but you misunderstand the very nature of God. 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God of Hosts.' He cannot deny Himself ( 1 Timothy 2:13). Why is there no remission of sins without the shedding of blood? Because of the holiness of God. '.....by no means clearing the guilty.' Unless Christ is our surety, there is no hope for any of us. He must drink the cup of God's wrath, and drink it down to the very dregs.

This is what troubled Trypho: how could the Christ be made a curse? And it is what Justin explained, if you had but eyes to see.

Martin,

There is two elements you seem to blend. Shedding of blood and death.

Either one can happen without the other, and the same with Christ.

The shedding began in the garden.

The death was not because of shed blood, but life laid down - the evidence of the full wages of sin being remunerated.

 

[JonC]

I am going out in just a moment and the thread will probably be closed when I get back, but you misunderstand the very nature of God. 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God of Hosts.' He cannot deny Himself ( 1 Timothy 2:13). Why is there no remission of sins without the shedding of blood? Because of the holiness of God. '.....by no means clearing the guilty.' Unless Christ is our surety, there is no hope for any of us. He must drink the cup of God's wrath, and drink it down to the very dregs.

This is what troubled Trypho: how could the Christ be made a curse? And it is what Justin explained, if you had but eyes to see.

Not at all. It is because of God's holiness that you are wrong. God becoming a curse for us did not mean God taking sin unto Himself or considering Himself to be evil or sinful. Just as God cannot clear the guilty, He will not condemn the righteous. It is not "it is written" but "it is written again".

I actually agree with Martyr that Christ suffered by God's will at the hands of the Jews, becoming a curse by taking on corruptable flesh for the human family. I agree with Luther to the extent it was b6 virtue of merit and not punishment sin and wrath was averted. I just don't accept your theory.

 

[agedman]

He must drink the cup of God's wrath, and drink it down to the very dregs.

There is not a single Scripture I can find to support this statement.

Can you share one that specifically mention the Christ drank “the cup of God’s wrath down to the dredges.”

Rather, I find just the opposite is presented in the Scriptures.

 

[JonC]

There is not a single Scripture I can find to support this statement.

Can you share one that specifically mention the Christ drank “the cup of God’s wrath down to the dredges.”

Rather, I find just the opposite is presented in the Scriptures.

The wicked will drink of God's wrath. His theory is this verse applies to God. And you are right, it is not in Scripture that God will look upon His Son as wicked (actually, the opposite).

 

[JonC]

The troubling part of PSA, as expressed here, is that we cannot (or should not) expect God to be more faithful to us than He was to His own Son. If He could not keep His word when it comes to Christ, then He certainly won’t keep it towards those who are “in” Christ. Scripture records, over and over again, that Christ is God’s beloved, His Holy One, His Righteous One. Scripture also records that God will not condemn the righteous, and that He will be faithful. Many of these statements in the Old Testament are directed towards the Messiah. But if God broke His word there, if He turned His back on Christ at the Cross, if He poured out His anger and wrath upon His Son, then we have no hope.

If, on the other hand, God gave His Son, His Son lay down His life and became a sin offering, became the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and died at the hands of godless men to be vindicated by God as He rose on the third day, then we have hope.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is not a single Scripture I can find to support this statement.

Can you share one that specifically mention the Christ drank “the cup of God’s wrath down to the dredges.”

Rather, I find just the opposite is presented in the Scriptures.

Matthew 26:39-42 and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. That it was drunk completely is shown by John 19:30.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The troubling part of PSA, as expressed here, is that we cannot (or should not) expect God to be more faithful to us than He was to His own Son. If He could not keep His word when it comes to Christ, then He certainly won’t keep it towards those who are “in” Christ. Scripture records, over and over again, that Christ is God’s beloved, His Holy One, His Righteous One. Scripture also records that God will not condemn the righteous, and that He will be faithful. Many of these statements in the Old Testament are directed towards the Messiah. But if God broke His word there, if He turned His back on Christ at the Cross, if He poured out His anger and wrath upon His Son, then we have no hope.

If, on the other hand, God gave His Son, His Son lay down His life and became a sin offering, became the Propitiation for the sins of the world, and died at the hands of godless men to be vindicated by God as He rose on the third day, then we have hope.

You are committing the very error warned against by Stott in his book on the cross. If you suppose that at the cross, God the Father inflicted a punishment upon Christ that He was unwilling to accept, of that Christ on the cross extracted a mercy from the Father that He was unwilling to give, you are way off beam. John 10:17-18 and John 3:16 are your texts.

Likewise, we read that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If that text leads you to suppose that God condemned the righteous, or that He broke His word, all it shows is that you do not understand the Scriptures. I've explained it all to you before; I'm not going to do it again.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Again, you are interpreting Scripture by providing for it an extra-biblical context and adding to the text. For example:

Hebrews 7:18-22 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, "THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER'"); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.

DOES NOT say that Jesus secured our salvation by perfectly keeping the Law. You are not only missing the game but you are in the wrong ball park when you look to the Law as the vehicle for salvation. Do you not see that you are adding "because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law"?????

Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30.

The Law and the prophets testified to Christ, not the other way around. You have it backwards.

Your text says that the Lord Jesus is the surety of a better covenant. The Old Covenant was good, but the New is better. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of human flesh on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.......' (Romans 8:3-4). The law is holy and just and good (Romans 7:12) but it is weak because of the flesh-- we can't keep it! Does this mean that God's plan, made before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; Titus 1:2) is not going to be carried out? No, praise God! For what the law could not do God has done in Jesus Christ by sending Him willingly to die for sinners and satisfy the demands of divine justice ('the righteous requirements of the law'). As surety, He acted for us, providing the perfect righteousness that we could not provide, paying the debt we could not pay and the penalty that was hanging over us. that is what it means to be a surety. Paul became a surety for Onesimus: 'But if he owes you anything, put that on my account' (Philemon 8). Another lovely illustration of what being a surety involves is provided by Judah in Genesis 43:9; "I myself will be surety for [Benjamin]; from my hand you shall require him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you let me bear the blame forever,' and then in Genesis 44:32-33.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30.

Your text says that the Lord Jesus is the surety of a better covenant. The Old Covenant was good, but the New is better. 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of human flesh on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.......' (Romans 8:3-4). The law is holy and just and good (Romans 7:12) but it is weak because of the flesh-- we can't keep it! Does this mean that God's plan, made before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; Titus 1:2) is not going to be carried out? No, praise God! For what the law could not do God has done in Jesus Christ by sending Him willingly to die for sinners and satisfy the demands of divine justice ('the righteous requirements of the law'). As surety, He acted for us, providing the perfect righteousness that we could not provide, paying the debt we could not pay and the penalty that was hanging over us. that is what it means to be a surety. Paul became a surety for Onesimus: 'But if he owes you anything, put that on my account' (Philemon 8). Another lovely illustration of what being a surety involves is provided by Judah in Genesis 43:9; "I myself will be surety for [Benjamin]; from my hand you shall require him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you let me bear the blame forever,' and then in Genesis 44:32-33.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Exactly. He condemned son in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us. No need to change the verse to "Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law so that counts for us and we will be saved because God punished Him for our disobedience."

My suggestion - more Scripture and less theory.

 

[JonC]

You are committing the very error warned against by Stott in his book on the cross. If you suppose that at the cross, God the Father inflicted a punishment upon Christ that He was unwilling to accept, of that Christ on the cross extracted a mercy from the Father that He was unwilling to give, you are way off beam. John 10:17-18 and John 3:16 are your texts.

Likewise, we read that 'It pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' If that text leads you to suppose that God condemned the righteous, or that He broke His word, all it shows is that you do not understand the Scriptures. I've explained it all to you before; I'm not going to do it again.

You are making a logical error. Christ willingly accepted the Cross. I have no issue there. This was God's plan. Again, no issue there. But a man-centered atonement? I disagree. It is not about us. It is about God. Not God's dishonor but His glory.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2 PM Pacific.