When Understanding the Cross

[DaveXR650]

Heresy. God does not justify the ungodly.

Come on. Romans 4:5. Now I'm not saying that this refers to wicked people who wish to remain wicked and not repent. But I've said that several times and so I don't expect you to understand it this time either.

 

[JonC]

This is what I said:

You have to have the ability to read more than one sentence and then stopping. Or else you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I stop at heresy. Nothing else matters after that.

God will NOT justify the wicked.
God will NOT condemn the righteous.
God WILL forgive sins based on repentance.

The Atonement meets all of those requirements. Your theory does not.

No need to read the Book of Mormon after the first heresy to see what it says.

 

[DaveXR650]

I stop at heresy. Nothing else matters after that.

God will NOT justify the wicked.
God will NOT condemn the righteous.
God WILL forgive sins based on repentance.

The Atonement meets all of those requirements. Your theory does not.

No need to read the Book of Mormon after the first heresy to see what it says.

That's an odd, non answer.

 

[JonC]

Come on. Romans 4:5. Now I'm not saying that this refers to wicked people who wish to remain wicked and not repent. But I've said that several times and so I don't expect you to understand it this time either.

Come on. Romans chapter 4.

Through faith God justifies the ungodly, which is explained as his faith being credited as righteousness.

This is a crediting of righteousness of the OT saints based on their faith in God (God looking over their sins until "this present age").

But this is crediting, not justifying (actually being righteous) which is based on Christ as the guarantor of a better covenant.

 

[JonC]

That's an odd, non answer.

Not really. Why entertain heresy just to see where it might contain some truths?

 

[Charlie24]

I probably need to expound a bit as I think we do see the "how" differently. I just do not want to leave it as we completely agree based on not defining beliefs. That would not be right.

I believe Christ was punished for us and because of our sins on the Cross. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

I believe that this is the Just for the unjust. For it is better to suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the body, but made alive in the spirit.

I believe that when we were sinners Christ died for us. I do not think we see this any differently.

I believe He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Again, I font think we see this differently.


I think we differ in Christ bearing our sin because you told me awhile back that you view this as meaning God had to take our sns from us and put on Him for Him to bear our sins.

I cannot agree with that.

God laid our iniquity on Christ.
God lays His righteousness on us now.

He bore our sins.
We currently bear His righteousness.

If I viewed Chriiat bearing our sins meaning God took those sins from us and put on Him then I would have to apply that to us now bearing His righteousness because this is "the Just for the unjust" (same type of concept).

This would mean God now takes Jesus' righteousness from Him and puts it on us and He is now in righteous.

The Scripture says, "you were bought with a price."

I am bought a paid for by the Blood of Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

He took my sin debt from me and took it upon Himself, "the just for the unjust."

That is what God demanded of Christ to set me free.

I know we disagree that when Christ took my sin upon Himself on the Cross, He also took the wrath of God that came with that sin.

I believe He took the full wrath of God, taking my place and punishment due on my part.

I'm sorry we can't agree.

 

[DaveXR650]

Come on. Romans chapter 4.

Yes. And chapter 5 too. Verses 7-8 of chapter 5 fully put to rest any idea that would try to separate out the reason for our faith being credited for righteousness as being apart from the the shed blood of Christ. And while I agree that Abraham was not what you would call "wicked" before he showed his faith verses 7-9 clearly state that Christ died for us while we were still sinners and that we are justified by his blood. So while I agree that above, if all you mean is that we must repent; I would have to say that if you truly mean that the basis of justification is our repentance then you are the heretic.

 

[JonC]

Yes. And chapter 5 too. Verses 7-8 of chapter 5 fully put to rest any idea that would try to separate out the reason for our faith being credited for righteousness as being apart from the the shed blood of Christ.

You have completely misunderstood.

I am saying that by faith in Christ God declares us just based on Christ Himself as the Surety of a better covenant that will make us actually righteous.

Your theory that God cannot literally forgive sins so He condemns to death the Righteous in order to justify the wicked is based not on God or His words but on a legal philosophy that has been proved unjust in practice.

When God judges the World we will be righteous (not just declared just). So the idea that the Father sacrificed Himself to become unjust in order to save us is flawed.

 

[DaveXR650]

God changes the ungodly, they are not justified. You reject, ultimately, that this is a righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

I know a lot of people reject the whole concept of imputed sin, and imputed righteousness. I really don't have any problem with people who do that but in light of the difficulties you have in even acknowledging someone else's ideas of the atonement I don't with to go there. I don't know how you can say I reject a righteousness of God apart from the law since I just put up Romans 4 and 5 as references. That's what I mean, your mind just free flows with made up objections from who knows where.

People are justified as they believe with an imputed righteousness as far as I can tell. That is possible due to the atoning work of Christ. You've got it all messed up in your mind and you need to really reevaluate your positions on this. If not, at least have enough integrity to not try to moderate a Baptist board with these views and these constant attacks on penal substitution.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am saying that by faith in Christ God declares us just based on Christ Himself as the Surety of a better covenant that will make us actually righteous.

Yes. That is imputed righteousness. Christ as Surety does not negate Christ as our sin bearer. This is your problematic exegesis again.

 

[JonC]

The Scripture says, "you were bought with a price."

I am bought a paid for by the Blood of Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

He took my sin debt from me and took it upon Himself, "the just for the unjust."

That is what God demanded of Christ to set me free.

I know we disagree that when Christ took my sin upon Himself on the Cross, He also took the wrath of God that came with that sin.

I believe He took the full wrath of God, taking my place and punishment due on my part.

I'm sorry we can't agree.

Nah. Us not agreeing is not a reason to be sorry. We do not have to agree on everything. Look at where we do agree:

We agree that we were bought with a price, that we are bought and paid for by the Blood of Jesus Christ by grace through faith.

We agree that Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins - "the just for the unjust."

We agree that He bore our sins in His body on the cross, and it is by His stripes we were healed.

We agree that Jesus was out to death in the body and made alive in the spirit.

 

[JonC]

Yes. That is imputed righteousness. Christ as Surety does not negate Christ as our sin bearer. This is your problematic exegesis again.

The declaration is imputed righteousness (credited as righteous) but it points to a future reality (predestined to be made into the image of Christ, to righteousness, to glorification).



Anyway....all this from you to simply say you reject justice as given in God's words as being one of these "fence posts".

 

[JonC]

, and the thumbs up by @JonC ,

My "thumbs up" was because I appreciated 12639 offering what he viewed as a non-negotiable boundary in developing a doctrine of Atonement rather than simply trying to argue for his understanding.

I was concerned that members would just come over here and extend arguments from other threads here rather than giving their criteria for a line not to cross.

For me, two of my "fence posts" are:

1. God will not condemn the righteous.
2. God will not justify the wicked.

Those are just two "posts".

 

[DaveXR650]

Anyway....all this from you to simply say you reject justice as given in God's words as being one of these "fence posts".

For me, two of my "fence posts" are:

1. God will not condemn the righteous.
2. God will not justify the wicked.

Those are just two "posts".

Yes. I think you are making a fundamental error in thinking that God will not condemn the righteous and that God will not justify the wicked as proving penal substitution cannot be right. I believe those 2 principles are the very foundation for the necessity of penal substitution - otherwise, we are undone and without hope.

 

[DaveXR650]

His physical death was for His bodily resurrection as evidence of what Jesus had completed. 1 Corinthians 15:17, And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

That's fine. My only concern was that there is a school of thought that views the resurrection as saving us and not the cross. It is debated a lot. The resurrection is proof of the effectiveness of the cross and thus without it as Paul said "you are still in your sins".

 

[JonC]

Yes. I think you are making a fundamental error in thinking that God will not condemn the righteous and that God will not justify the wicked

Why? The Bible states that so it should be "fence posts" or a criteria when understanding the cross.

 

[Zaatar71]

Come on. Romans 4:5. Now I'm not saying that this refers to wicked people who wish to remain wicked and not repent. But I've said that several times and so I don't expect you to understand it this time either.

Romans 4:5 is very clear that it cannot be mistaken. That God justifies the elect who at one point were children of Wrath, even as others, they were ungodly rebels, but now as God's wrath toward them has been propitiated by Their Lord and Savior, they are the justified ungodly persons, transformed into saints!

 

[JonC]

Romans 4:5 is very clear that it cannot be mistaken. That God justifies the elect who at one point were children of Wrath, even as others, they were ungodly rebels, but now as God's wrath toward them has been propitiated by Their Lord and Savior, they are the justified ungodly persons, transformed into saints!

When God judges the world, those trusting that righteousness is credited to them rather than actually being righteous will experience the "second death".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1. God will punish the wicked.
2. God will not punish the righteous.

If this is so, then there is no hope for anyone as I said. And it will not do for you to say that it is a logical fallacy. It is what you say.

God NEVER justifies the ungodly. The wicked will be punished, period. No wiggle room. God is not a liar.

Well I think you may be suggesting that He is. Romans 5:6, 8-9. 'For when we were still without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly ......... But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him'
So God DOES justify the ungodly. I don't think there is any other meaning that can be attached to these words. So when you claim:

God changes the ungodly, they are not justified. You reject, ultimately, that this is a righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

You are completely up a gum tree. I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said. You are wrong, and I thank God for it, for if you were right there would be no hope for any of us.

 

[JonC]

If this is so, then there is no hope for anyone as I said. And it will not do for you to say that it is a logical fallacy.

The reason you committed a fallacy (a false dichotomy) is the conditions can actually be met without God becoming guilty of committing an abomination.

God will not justify the wicked.
God will not punish the righteous as if guilty


God will not justify the wicked.

We are now bearing His righteousness, God lays His righteousness on us. But we are not now standing before God at judgment.

God predestined us to be conformed to Christ's image, to be justified, to be glorified. This will happen.

God will punish the wicked...ALL of the wicked.

God will never punish the righteous (God is just).