BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: journeyman on November 03, 2021, 10:19:58 AM
-
To me, the righteousness of God is how he lovingly endures the wrong committed against himself, willing to forgive sinners, yet after great longsuffering, must condemn the unrepentant.
Does anyone agree?
-
Not I.
The righteousness of God is a divine attribute, an expression of His nature and essence, not the result of something He does or does not do. It is who and what He is, not works that He does.
Righteousness is the aspect of God whereby everything else in the universe is measured by God. God's righteousness is the standard for all other essences or expressions of divinity.
Because of this truth, man cannot be righteous in and of himself, as man lacks the inherent quality of righteousness. Man can only be righteous when the righteousness of God is imputed to man.
That may seem like it's being picky, but righteousness is about essence, not actions. Righteousness is the catalyst and basis for actions, but is not limited to actions.
-
Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.
Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.
-
To me, the righteousness of God is how he lovingly endures the wrong committed against himself, willing to forgive sinners, yet after great longsuffering, must condemn the unrepentant.
Does anyone agree?
Nope. You are pushing a "works" based theology. God "is" Righteous and because "of" His righteousness, He's given provision for mankind to reestablish a relationship with Him. He patiently waits for mankind to respond to His provision. Those who choose to respond, He reestablishes commune with the believer because THEIR punishment was inflicted upon (taken by) Jesus Christ, they are reconciled with God (Christ was their propitiation). Those who choose to not respond, He never reestablishes commune with the unbeliever and due to His righteousness, since their is NO propitiation for them by Christ's punishment, they will suffer the consequences eternally.
-
Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.
Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.
Yes, but as has been stated ad nauseum in another thread, God's forgiveness is not unilateral; that is, it isn't arbitrary and capricious. God's acts of forgiveness are based on Jesus having already satisfied God's holy wrath in imputed propitiation for my sin, so that God's forgiveness is forgoing a penalty that has been fully satisfied, thus when the payment for my sin is measured against God's righteousness, then God is just in imputing Christ's righteousness to me.
-
To me, the righteousness of God is how he lovingly endures the wrong committed against himself, willing to forgive sinners, yet after great longsuffering, must condemn the unrepentant.
Does anyone agree?
I'll have to agree with everyone else: God is righteousness, and He does not merely possess righteousness. The same would be said of God's other attributes. Of course, because God is righteousness itself - or since righteousness flows from God - God acts in righteous ways, as you suggest with your post.
-
Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.
Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.
Yes, but as has been stated ad nauseum in another thread, God's forgiveness is not unilateral; that is, it isn't arbitrary and capricious. God's acts of forgiveness are based on Jesus having already satisfied God's holy wrath in imputed propitiation for my sin, so that God's forgiveness is forgoing a penalty that has been fully satisfied, thus when the payment for my sin is measured against God's righteousness, then God is just in imputing Christ's righteousness to me.
I have not been following the thread much, so nothing is "ad nauseum" to me on this. I find this to be an interesting aspect of recognizing who God is.
I fully appreciate your concern about any sense of God's "capriciousness" or "arbitrariness." But it is what it is. God doesn't have to meet any standard to be called "God." As such, He, as God, determines who others perceive Him to be.
That being said, I agree that God is consistently who He is. But I believe He could've chosen to forgive sinners or not. There was no "bar" for God to reach to determine if He was being "kind" or not.
Thank God He chose to be kind. He would've been "kind" whether He forgave us or not. But God's plan encompassed this understanding when He made man, determining to be consistent and not fail to accomplish what He set out to do. If He chose to make Man in His image, which He did, then He chose, in advance, to redeem Man from any collective failure of Man by selecting out those who will repent.
-
to redeem Man from any collective failure of Man by selecting out those who will repent.
Hey brother, I can only interpret your conclusion here as follows:
1) God provided a means of reconciliation with Himself, for only some but not others.
2) God's provision for reconciliation can only be effectual, in some and not in others.
Which is in understanding your conclusion or if neither is, what do you mean?
-
God doesn't have to meet any standard to be called "God." As such, He, as God, determines who others perceive Him to be.
Arguably, He does. Or, if God's attributes were different we would consider such a being a different kind of 'G'od. Say, a being who is the creator but malicious. Or, a being who is the creator but disinterested. We might then have beings who are God by definition but not worthy of praise. However, I think we'd use a different word than 'God' for such beings that were malicious, capricious, evil. We'd use a different word if it turned out that 'God' was a supra-dimensional alien race of 'Q' like beings.
And John de Lancie, for all we know... Well, for all we know there exists such a race. Who knows what else God created.
But I believe He could've chosen to forgive sinners or not. There was no "bar" for God to reach to determine if He was being "kind" or not.
The 'bar' is God's character and attributes. As RK is suggesting in some capacity, God cannot act arbitrarily because God must act in accordance with his character and attributes. God cannot act in ways inconsistent with His being.
Thank God He chose to be kind.
Well, I don't think it's quite like this, but I understand what you're saying.
-
to redeem Man from any collective failure of Man by selecting out those who will repent.
Hey brother, I can only interpret your conclusion here as follows:
1) God provided a means of reconciliation with Himself, for only some but not others.
2) God's provision for reconciliation can only be effectual, in some and not in others.
Which is in understanding your conclusion or if neither is, what do you mean?
Yes, I think I understand your concern. The thought is not that God only wanted to save some--clearly, He provided atonement for *all* sinners. But the reality is, only *some* will be saved.
So I'm not saying God determined that some should be lost--clearly, He wanted them to be saved. But in knowing that some would reject Him, He could not disallow Himself from having what He originally wanted, which is a representation of what He originally planned for.
The "some" who will get saved will match God's original wish for a world of people made in His image. Those who fail will not prevent God from reaching His goal. God's will cannot be thwarted, notwithstanding the choice of many not to cooperate.
-
God doesn't have to meet any standard to be called "God." As such, He, as God, determines who others perceive Him to be.
Arguably, He does. Or, if God's attributes were different we would consider such a being a different kind of 'G'od. Say, a being who is the creator but malicious. Or, a being who is the creator but disinterested. We might then have beings who are God by definition but not worthy of praise. However, I think we'd use a different word than 'God' for such beings that were malicious, capricious, evil. We'd use a different word if it turned out that 'God' was a supra-dimensional alien race of 'Q' like beings.
And John de Lancie, for all we know... Well, for all we know there exists such a race. Who knows what else God created.
But I believe He could've chosen to forgive sinners or not. There was no "bar" for God to reach to determine if He was being "kind" or not.
The 'bar' is God's character and attributes. As RK is suggesting in some capacity, God cannot act arbitrarily because God must act in accordance with his character and attributes. God cannot act in ways inconsistent with His being.
Thank God He chose to be kind.
Well, I don't think it's quite like this, but I understand what you're saying.
I like what you say. However, I'm simply stating that God is, by nature, what we identify as "kind." He defines, by what He does, as "kind." He does not try to meet some imaginary bar for becoming "kind." Whatever He does is, by definition, "kind."
Whatever we see God do is consistent with what we perceive to be "kindness." But it is not always the human definition of "kindness," which sometimes is a matter of what suits us.
What suits us is not always divine kindness. God defines kindness by what He does, and it always comes across to us as "kindness," if we are honest.
-
Yes, I think I understand your concern. The thought is not that God only wanted to save some--clearly, He provided atonement for *all* sinners. But the reality is, only *some* will be saved.
So I'm not saying God determined that some should be lost--clearly, He wanted them to be saved. But in knowing that some would reject Him, He could not disallow Himself from having what He originally wanted, which is a representation of what He originally planned for.
The "some" who will get saved will match God's original wish for a world of people made in His image. Those who fail will not prevent God from reaching His goal. God's will cannot be thwarted, notwithstanding the choice of many not to cooperate.
In all honestly, to me and maybe only to me, it seems you are tripping all over your own words. Why do I say this... because while your first two paragraphs begin to be understandable (to me), you suddenly begin to focus on a LIMIT to whom God wants and you call these people, the "some." Seems (to me) that you inverted the points and they oppose. It just seems that you tripped and when you stood back up and continued on... pointed out the exact opposite.
Based on your conclusion (final part of para 2 and all of para3), let me raise that God's Word reveals He desires that NONE perish. So, based on your final conclusion, can I say the following and be in full understanding of your final conclusion??
1) Once God's goal for "some" is achieved... the desire that none perish, ends?
-
Yes, I think I understand your concern. The thought is not that God only wanted to save some--clearly, He provided atonement for *all* sinners. But the reality is, only *some* will be saved.
So I'm not saying God determined that some should be lost--clearly, He wanted them to be saved. But in knowing that some would reject Him, He could not disallow Himself from having what He originally wanted, which is a representation of what He originally planned for.
The "some" who will get saved will match God's original wish for a world of people made in His image. Those who fail will not prevent God from reaching His goal. God's will cannot be thwarted, notwithstanding the choice of many not to cooperate.
In all honestly, to me and maybe only to me, it seems you are tripping all over your own words. Why do I say this... because while your first two paragraphs begin to be understandable (to me), you suddenly begin to focus on a LIMIT to whom God wants and you call these people, the "some." Seems (to me) that you inverted the points and they oppose. It just seems that you tripped and when you stood back up and continued on... pointed out the exact opposite.
Based on your conclusion (final part of para 2 and all of para3), let me raise that God's Word reveals He desires that NONE perish. So, based on your final conclusion, can I say the following and be in full understanding of your final conclusion??
1) Once God's goal for "some" is achieved... the desire that none perish, ends?
I couldn't agree with that only because it is so generic that it could be misconstrued the way I see it. The reason you feel I'm "tripping" is not because I'm actually "tripping" at all--rather, it's because I don't feel your belief covers the doctrine of Predestination. (I don't agree with Arminianism.)
God actually plans only for some people to be saved, even though He wants all people to be saved. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. It just isn't explaining all of the finer issues.
God wants only some people to be saved because of their choices. He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.
And yet, He wants all people to make the right choice. He wants all people to make the right choice and be saved, even though He knows that not all will make the right choice.
Can you agree with that?
-
I couldn't agree with that only because it is so generic that it could be misconstrued the way I see it. The reason you feel I'm "tripping" is not because I'm actually "tripping" at all--rather, it's because I don't feel your belief covers the doctrine of Predestination. (I don't agree with Arminianism.)
God actually plans only for some people to be saved, even though He wants all people to be saved. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. It just isn't explaining all of the finer issues.
The only way that I can reconcile with what scriptures reveals, in the most concise way I can express.
God "knows" (foreknowledge) who will and who will not believe in Him, faithfully. For those who will choose Him faithfully, He's predestined for works of righteousness. For those who will not choose Him faithfully, He's predestined for works of unrighteousness.
God wants only some people to be saved because of their choices. He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.
The only way for this to be reconciled with scripture is to find where God does NOT desire, that none perish.
And yet, He wants all people to make the right choice.
Which is supported in scripture in that Christ's sacrifice is for ALL mankind, not some.
He wants all people to make the right choice and be saved, even though He knows that not all will make the right choice.
Which again, is supported by the fact that God desires that NONE, perish.
So, we have another example of confliction in your post where you ID and single out a "group" of people that you refer to as, "some people." Yet, in His desire to NOT have ANY of mankind perish, you conflict yourself in saying the following:
He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.
So which is it? God desires NONE perish, per scripture, or is it He doesn't want (thus desires they perish), some people to be saved, per your comment that conflicts both yourself and scripture??
Could it be that God's provision aligns with His desire that NONE perish but knows, not all will chose the provision? Meaning, your statement that He "doesn't want people to be saved because they won't choose Him, is not aligned with what is revealed ???
I can actually testify that your statement, "He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation," is false. Here is how... I CHOSE AGAINST His provision for salvation for 26 years of my life. Your statement, if followed through to it's logical conclusion, means I would never be able to chose God because He never wanted to save me, due to my rejection of His Son.
Brother, God desires that NONE perish. This means to say He doesn't want people to be saved, is false. Sure, many will reject Him and they will REAP the consequence of that choice UPON their physical death. But this NEVER means they are in some group He DOES not provide for. It literally means, they did not choose Him... but they WERE provided for, for salvation. I'm proof, you are too I'm sure. The MOST hardened heart CAN relent and repent.
-
The only way for this to be reconciled with scripture is to find where God does NOT desire, that none perish.
...Which is supported in scripture in that Christ's sacrifice is for ALL mankind, not some.
...So, we have another example of confliction in your post where you ID and single out a "group" of people that you refer to as, "some people." Yet, in His desire to NOT have ANY of mankind perish, you conflict yourself in saying the following:
He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.
So which is it? God desires NONE perish, per scripture, or is it He doesn't want (thus desires they perish), some people to be saved, per your comment that conflicts both yourself and scripture??
...I can actually testify that your statement, "He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation," is false. Here is how... I CHOSE AGAINST His provision for salvation for 26 years of my life. Your statement, if followed through to it's logical conclusion, means I would never be able to chose God because He never wanted to save me, due to my rejection of His Son.
....Brother, God desires that NONE perish. This means to say He doesn't want people to be saved, is false. Sure, many will reject Him and they will REAP the consequence of that choice UPON their physical death. But this NEVER means they are in some group He DOES not provide for. It literally means, they did not choose Him... but they WERE provided for, for salvation. I'm proof, you are too I'm sure. The MOST hardened heart CAN relent and repent.
I already said that God wishes that none perish. And I already said that this does not conflict with the idea that God wishes that some perish, after they have made a final choice against Salvation. Why can't you follow that line of reasoning?
You say that this is not found in Scriptures, and yet it is obviously found in Scripture that God's will is that men should be thrown into the eternal Lake of Fire. Don't say that isn't the will of God--it's there in Scriptures!
When you suggest that you and I resisted Salvation, it's obvious that that choice, on our part, to resist Salvation, was not final. So when I speak of God's choice to damn some of mankind, it is only designed to inflict eternal punishment upon those whose choice against Salvation is final.
-
I already said that God wishes that none perish. And I already said that this does not conflict with the idea that God wishes that some perish, after they have made a final choice against Salvation. Why can't you follow that line of reasoning?
Brother, I pointed out that my choice to reject Christ, was final... until I relented. Sure, that means it was NOT final but for me, it was. But again, due to God's foreknowledge, He knew I had not made a final choice and my predestined works of righteousness were still prepared for me before creation.
You say that this is not found in Scriptures, and yet it is obviously found in Scripture that God's will is that men should be thrown into the eternal Lake of Fire. Don't say that isn't the will of God--it's there in Scriptures!
God has prepared a place for the angels that rebelled, if this place was specifically prepared for mankind who would reject Him, that God "intended" for mankind to" also" be placed at that location. Meaning, God designated (chose) some for heaven and some for hell... can ya post the verses for me?
When you suggest that you and I resisted Salvation, it's obvious that that choice, on our part, to resist Salvation, was not final. So when I speak of God's choice to damn some of mankind, it is only designed to inflict eternal punishment upon those whose choice against Salvation is final.
Wording matter's brother, "meaning" or context always matters to reach the truth in understanding of God's Word. Sure, I can agree with your correction or reiteration of word use because now what you are meaning, your "reasoning," is easier to understand.
Just imagine if a lost person was reading your words from the previous 2-3 posts concerning what you and I expressed. Due to your words, the only logical conclusion is that God would/will NEVER save them. But NOW, due to your correction in meaning (use of words in a more clear manner), they cannot come to that logical conclusion.
As was said several times in the NT when the Gospel was spoken or teaching of Jesus was provided, the request to NOT harden their (those listening) own hearts was expressed because ANY of the listeners could "relent" to the truth of Christ and chose to believe. None of them (listeners who were lost/rejected the Messiah), were "predestined" for hell meaning, God did not choose to NOT save them.
-
I already said that God wishes that none perish. And I already said that this does not conflict with the idea that God wishes that some perish, after they have made a final choice against Salvation. Why can't you follow that line of reasoning?
As formulated these two statements are indeed in tension with each other. If God 'wishes' (desire is a better word) that 'none perish', then He wishes that 'none perish'. If He wishes that 'some perish', then He can't also wish that 'none perish'. The language isn't right. God might allow some to perish after they reject Him, but that's not the same as God 'wishing' they perish as a result of that rejection.
Even on a Molinist understanding of soteriology, we need to be careful in how God's predestining is presented. If we talk as if the future is foreknown, and it happens exactly as God knows it will happen, then welcome to fatalism (and thus we aren't talking about middle knowledge at all). Like Doctor Who, God's mere knowing fixes events in place. If God knows about all possible outcomes, on the other hand, then the future is open. But then we can't so easily talk about those who God knows will reject him, because that could change with the passage of time. God then knows what will happen should this or that event occur, but His knowledge isn't so concrete so as to fix events in place, historically speaking. Riker knew something about this, but not Amanda Rogers until she tried to make it happen.
It seems to me that this is how things are.
-
I already said that God wishes that none perish. And I already said that this does not conflict with the idea that God wishes that some perish, after they have made a final choice against Salvation. Why can't you follow that line of reasoning?
As formulated these two statements are indeed in tension with each other. If God 'wishes' (desire is a better word) that 'none perish', then He wishes that 'none perish'. If He wishes that 'some perish', then He can't also wish that 'none perish'. The language isn't right. God might allow some to perish after they reject Him, but that's not the same as God 'wishing' they perish as a result of that rejection.
Two apparently contradictory statements can be made without using "bad language." If I'm doing so, and I am, to show the apparent contradiction, in order to point out how they require *more explanation,* then the language is good.
Again, this is not purely a philosophical argument--it is, as I propose, a *biblical argument.* Both statements are true. God wants all to be saved. And God wants only some to be saved. This requires further explanation, as your point suggests.
Even on a Molinist understanding of soteriology, we need to be careful in how God's predestining is presented. If we talk as if the future is foreknown, and it happens exactly as God knows it will happen, then welcome to fatalism (and thus we aren't talking about middle knowledge at all).
I'm not a fatalist. I don't believe in absolute determinism. I believe in free choice. But in setting up human choices God determined the circumstances.
God, from the beginning, set up free agents to make free choices. His intention was that all free choices be done in accordance with His word. But true freedom also required the possibility of choosing *not* do live in accordance with His word.
And so, though God wanted all to be "saved," as such, He proposed free choice enabling a circumstance in which His choice for human Salvation was contingent upon Man choosing to live in His word. If not, then His choice is determined by circumstance to reject those who do not live in His word.
-
Funny.
Arminius believed in predestination.
Funny how so many people that claim not to agree with Arminianism seem to have no idea what Arminius believed.
Here’s Jacobus himself on predestination...
“ “Predestination therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the Decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He resolved within Himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of His own glorious grace, believers on whom He had decreed to bestow faith.”
-
Funny.
Arminius believed in predestination.
Funny how so many people that claim not to agree with Arminianism seem to have no idea what Arminius believed.
Here’s Jacobus himself on predestination...
“ “Predestination therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the Decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He resolved within Himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of His own glorious grace, believers on whom He had decreed to bestow faith.”
No, everybody agrees with biblical predestination. When I use the term "Predestination," I'm technically referring to more of the Calvinist version of it. ;)
Give me credit. It's a little more complicated than that. I don't agree with either Luther or Calvin in a kind of "double-predestination." But I do agree that God determines that some will be damned--not because it was His wish, but only because of their choice.
And God knew, in advance, the choices men would take, if they were the spawn of people whose choices against God result in children whose nature it is to oppose God's word. Sinners may indeed give birth to sinners who repent. But sinners also give birth to those who by nature refuse to repent.
God knows the circumstances that dictate one or the other. But one thing in my mind is certain, that when men chose to sin they would reproduce something unlike what God planned to originally produce. That results in children who repent and children who refuse to repent. It results in children drawn to fulfilling God's original will, as well as to children who do not wish to be part of what God originally intended.
-
Not I.
The righteousness of God is a divine attribute, an expression of His nature and essence, not the result of something He does or does not do. It is who and what He is, not works that He does.
Righteousness is the aspect of God whereby everything else in the universe is measured by God. God's righteousness is the standard for all other essences or expressions of divinity.
Because of this truth, man cannot be righteous in and of himself, as man lacks the inherent quality of righteousness. Man can only be righteous when the righteousness of God is imputed to man.
That may seem like it's being picky, but righteousness is about essence, not actions. Righteousness is the catalyst and basis for actions, but is not limited to actions.
I didn't say his righteousness was limited or not an attribute.
-
Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.
Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.
Sounds like you're saying the same thing as me, without agreeing with me.
-
Nope. You are pushing a "works" based theology. God "is" Righteous and because "of" His righteousness, He's given provision for mankind to reestablish a relationship with Him. He patiently waits for mankind to respond to His provision. Those who choose to respond, He reestablishes commune with the believer because THEIR punishment was inflicted upon (taken by) Jesus Christ, they are reconciled with God (Christ was their propitiation). Those who choose to not respond, He never reestablishes commune with the unbeliever and due to His righteousness, since their is NO propitiation for them by Christ's punishment, they will suffer the consequences eternally.
Being sorry to repentance for the sins committed against Jesus, who chose not to enforce the law against sinners, isn't "pushing a works based theology".
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom.3:21
Propitiation is Jesus turning his wrath away from sinners.
-
Propitiation is Jesus turning his wrath away from sinners.
Propitiation is all about someone receiving "my" punishment and since the punishment I deserved was taken by another (Christ paid for my punishment), the One giving the punishment is appeased = I don't receive the due punishment because it's already been executed and paid out.
-
I'll have to agree with everyone else: God is righteousness, and He does not merely possess righteousness. The same would be said of God's other attributes. Of course, because God is righteousness itself - or since righteousness flows from God - God acts in righteous ways, as you suggest with your post.
Again, I never implied righteousness isn't of God's nature, but to clearly show
how he is righteous, things must occur to show why.
-
Propitiation is all about someone receiving "my" punishment.....
No. Propitiation is all about someone being wrongfully treated and not enforcing the law against the law breakers. That's the Son, who is as his Father is,
But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. Psa.78:38
And this is what he did on earth.....in person.
-
From whence cometh thy definition of "propitiation?"
Propitiation, at least in scripture, is ALWAYS about payment, not about excusing. Both OT and NT. Just no getting around it.
Otherwise the entire system of animal sacrifice in the OT under the Law was just a joke, as was the death of Jesus.
You cannot forgive without having God's wrath satisfied.
-
From whence cometh thy definition of "propitiation?"
Propitiation, at least in scripture, is ALWAYS about payment, not about excusing. Both OT and NT. Just no getting around it.
Otherwise the entire system of animal sacrifice in the OT under the Law was just a joke, as was the death of Jesus.
You cannot forgive without having God's wrath satisfied.
I find this difficult to explain in much detail because it can easily be misconstrued. Yes, there is a payment and a satisfaction required. Redemption and Propitiation suggest that.
Christ made a payment to God that lasts. All payments made to God under the Law were temporal.
What God requires of us today, therefore, is conformity to Christ. But that would not be possible unless Christ first made the eternal payment that God required.
Christ had to offer himself to God on our behalf, because no matter how much righteousness we do, it falls short of eternity. In coming to Christ we both return to conformity to God's word and embrace his forgiveness for all failures to do so. Christ paid the price of giving us this eternal righteousness. We could not pay this price, due to our human flaws.
-
No. Propitiation is all about someone being wrongfully treated and not enforcing the law against the law breakers. That's the Son, who is as his Father is,
But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. Psa.78:38
And this is what he did on earth.....in person.
Brother, while Rabbiknife has already gone into context where the understanding of propitiation can "only" go in accordance with scripture.
If you are willing to "learn" the truth about propitiation, I am sure either of us are willing to help you. Until then, we can only relay what propitiation is, while you continue to speak what propitiation is not.
Just remember, God's righteousness demands/requires that sin be punished (an execution of justice/judgment) both OT and NT Covenants. Your position is missing the satisfaction that God's righteousness, requires. Also remember, OT justice was temporal and NT, the justice is final. You are saying there is no need for "justice" against sin or better put, forgiveness without ANY form of appeasement (appeasement is the product of FINAL justice/judgement against sin).
-
From whence cometh thy definition of "propitiation?"
From seeing our Lord Jesus, our Creator, turn his wrath away from people who sinned against him.
Propitiation, at least in scripture, is ALWAYS about payment, not about excusing. Both OT and NT. Just no getting around it.
No. Propitiation is about mercy,
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Mic.6:7-8
Otherwise the entire system of animal sacrifice in the OT under the Law was just a joke, as was the death of Jesus.
No. The system of animal sacrifice shadowing our Saviors sacrifice is to lead sinners to repentance,
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hos.6:6
You cannot forgive without having God's wrath satisfied.
Jesus did,
And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. Lk.7:48
He's still doing it.
-
And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. Lk.7:48
He's still doing it.
Oh, Picard, mon capitaine, your primitive human mind simply cannot comprehend the nature of time.
Seriously Picard, you should think through the implications of your theology.
-
I was just reading Hebrews 10 this morning.
This entire thread is simply mind-numbing.
-
Brother, while Rabbiknife has already gone into context where the understanding of propitiation can "only" go in accordance with scripture.
If you are willing to "learn" the truth about propitiation, I am sure either of us are willing to help you. Until then, we can only relay what propitiation is, while you continue to speak what propitiation is not.
You guys aren't even commenting directly on the scriptures I'm citing.
Just remember, God's righteousness demands/requires that sin be punished (an execution of justice/judgment) both OT and NT Covenants. Your position is missing the satisfaction that God's righteousness, requires. Also remember, OT justice was temporal and NT, the justice is final. You are saying there is no need for "justice" against sin or better put, forgiveness without ANY form of appeasement (appeasement is the product of FINAL justice/judgement against sin).
I've already shown you how God punishes every one of his children for the purpose of correction and how Jesus submitted himself this way, even though he himself needed no correction and what have you guys said in response? Nothing.
Here is propitiation,
Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Lk.13:7-9
Slug, does, "until I dig about it and fertilize it", mean "until I get my brains bashed in? "
For God's sake, look at what he's saying.
-
What are you blathering on about? The "fig tree" is not Jesus... the fig tree is symbolic of those are saved but refuse to produce fruit and are eventually cast out of the kingdom.
The reason no one has commented on your "verses cited" is because none of the verses you have cited have anything to do with propitiation, which is an entirely different theological issue from forgiveness.
-
Oh, Picard, mon capitaine, your primitive human mind simply cannot comprehend the nature of time.
Seriously Picard, you should think through the implications of your theology.
I'm following what the Spirit of God says, not what theologians say.
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? Heb.12:7
-
I'm following what the Spirit of God says, not what theologians say.
Are you then saying that theologians are not following the Spirit of God? Or if they are, and what they say as a group contradicts what you say as a person, then who arbitrates between the two?
In fact, are you not here suggesting that no one else on the forum follows the 'Spirit of God' by virtue of their disagreeing with your theological positions? Positions which are, themselves, those of journeyman qua theologian?
And, if you're acting in the capacity of theologian, then are you not a theologian who follows what the 'Spirit of God' says? If so, then it must be that other theologians have also followed the 'Spirit of God'. In that case, how do you arbitrate between positional disagreements?
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? Heb.12:7
The point I was making is that forgiveness in Scripture is offered, ultimately, in relation to the cross. God isn't bound by the constraints of our linear perception of time (even if He chooses to work within those constraints), and it's entirely acceptable for Jesus to forgive sin before His sacrifice because His future sacrifice is retroactive, which means, it applies in that moment even though the sacrifice hasn't happened yet... Because it will happen. In fact, forgiveness at any point in history prior to the cross is acceptable because that event will happen, as a fixed point in time, if you will. Meaning that because the cross will happen, there is no point in history where forgiveness hasn't been acceptable.
Do you get what I'm saying? Adam and Eve and all of us have to deal with the consequences of sin, but there's no period in history where the cross doesn't reach. We learned that around the year 33. God has always known that.
-
You guys aren't even commenting directly on the scriptures I'm citing.
Because they have nothing to do with the context of popitiation.
I've already shown you how God punishes every one of his children for the purpose of correction and how Jesus submitted himself this way, even though he himself needed no correction and what have you guys said in response? Nothing.
We remain focused on the topic of propitiation.
Here is propitiation,
Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Lk.13:7-9
Slug, does, "until I dig about it and fertilize it", mean "until I get my brains bashed in? "
For God's sake, look at what he's saying.
That scripture is not about propitiation. Are you confusing "grace" with propitiation?
-
Are you then saying that theologians are not following the Spirit of God? Or if they are, and what they say as a group contradicts what you say as a person, then who arbitrates between the two?
We've been through this in the other thread. If anyone's theology is not aligned with his theology... the innuendo that all OTHER theologies are without God, will make it's way into the discussion. Then, when challenged, days and days of denial.
-
We've been through this in the other thread. If anyone's theology is not aligned with his theology... the innuendo that all OTHER theologies are without God, will make it's way into the discussion. Then, when challenged, days and days of denial.
It's just interesting that journeyman will hold in contradistinction the one who follows the 'Spirit of God' and theologians, as if the two are mutually exclusive, despite himself? taking upon himself? and acting effectively in the role of theologian. And you would think that if one was hearing from the 'Spirit of God' then one wouldn't be alone in whatever view was conveyed, and not just alone, but so alone that 'theologians' as a whole are taken as an oppositional group. That's an indication that something isn't quite right, rather than a call to dig in one's heels and become ever more convinced.
But, why bother continuing to engage when it seems like watching paint dry would be a more fruitful and fulfilling activity?
-
Are you then saying that theologians are not following the Spirit of God? Or if they are, and what they say as a group contradicts what you say as a person, then who arbitrates between the two?
Concerning this issue, theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly. Understanding comes from God.
In fact, are you not here suggesting that no one else on the forum follows the 'Spirit of God' by virtue of their disagreeing with your theological positions? Positions which are, themselves, those of journeyman qua theologian?
I'm not a professional theologian. I'm certain with respect to this issue, people who follow the commentaries of professional theologians are wrong.
And, if you're acting in the capacity of theologian, then are you not a theologian who follows what the 'Spirit of God' says? If so, then it must be that other theologians have also followed the 'Spirit of God'. In that case, how do you arbitrate between positional disagreements?
Pray.
The point I was making is that forgiveness in Scripture is offered, ultimately, in relation to the cross.
Ultimately, forgivness in scripture is granted to the repentant, despite the horrible way we've treated God. Ultimately, forgiveness won't begiven to anyone who rejected the witness of God himself. That's what the cross teaches. That's the righteousness of God.
God isn't bound by the constraints of our linear perception of time (even if He chooses to work within those constraints), and it's entirely acceptable for Jesus to forgive sin before His sacrifice because His future sacrifice is retroactive, which means, it applies in that moment even though the sacrifice hasn't happened yet... Because it will happen. In fact, forgiveness at any point in history prior to the cross is acceptable because that event will happen, as a fixed point in time, if you will. Meaning that because the cross will happen, there is no point in history where forgiveness hasn't been acceptable.
Do you get what I'm saying? Adam and Eve and all of us have to deal with the consequences of sin, but there's no period in history where the cross doesn't reach. We learned that around the year 33. God has always known that.
I get what you're saying and agree that God's love for mankind, epitomized by his willingness to forgive the worst sin people could commit against him, spans history.
Do you see how Jesus forgave the repentant woman who sinned against him?
Do you see how enduring chastisement is for the purpose of conforming us to his image?
-
How is the penalty for you sin paid for?
-
Because they have nothing to do with the context of popitiation.
Appeasing instead of destruction is propitiation and the fertilizer and water represent hearing the word of the Lord. He's the image of his Father.
-
The penalty for my sin would be my own death,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:28
This is God's righteousness. Thankfully, he freely forgives anyone who desires forgiveness, but you say for your sin, someone else will die. You say the son or father will bear your iniquity. You're wrong.
-
Concerning this issue, theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly. Understanding comes from God.
Well, at least one has since you claim to be expositing Scripture and are, thus, a theologian. Of course, it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly' which, at the very least, is to bear false witness against those within this group.
So tell me, what did Paul get wrong?
I'm not a professional theologian. I'm certain with respect to this issue, people who follow the commentaries of professional theologians are wrong.
This is an imaginary distinction. If you claim to know the true™®© meaning of Scripture then you aren't just a professional theologian, you are perhaps the theologian. Well, that's quite the claim indeed. Of course, you could respond that there are others who, like you, haven't been beguiled by the commentaries of 'professional theologians', but since none of them exist here we can conclude there are no such people.
Pray.
Oh, well God and the community of believers here have informed me that you're quite wrong. You couldn't possibly entertain that idea, though, since you imbue your view with particular divine inspiration.
Ultimately, forgivness in scripture is granted to the repentant, despite the horrible way we've treated God. Ultimately, forgiveness won't begiven to anyone who rejected the witness of God himself. That's what the cross teaches. That's the righteousness of God.
Ultimately, you didn't at all reply to what I said.
Do you see how Jesus forgave the repentant woman who sinned against him?
Do you see how enduring chastisement is for the purpose of conforming us to his image?
Do you see how these aren't relevant questions with respect to what I said?
-
The penalty for my sin would be my own death,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:28
This is God's righteousness. Thankfully, he freely forgives anyone who desires forgiveness, but you say for your sin, someone else will die. You say the son or father will bear your iniquity. You're wrong.
No, the Son, Jesus Christ, has already borne and paid the penalty for my sin. "He was MADE sin for us, who knew no sin, that WE might be MADE the righteousness of GOd, in Him."
Sin is an infinite offense to the holiness of God, and there must be a payment to satisfy that offense. This is the entire concept of propitiation and atonement.
"Forgiveness" without blood payment is a meaningless word.-
-
The penalty for my sin would be my own death,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:28
This is God's righteousness. Thankfully, he freely forgives anyone who desires forgiveness, but you say for your sin, someone else will die. You say the son or father will bear your iniquity. You're wrong.
No, the Son, Jesus Christ, has already borne and paid the penalty for my sin. "He was MADE sin for us, who knew no sin, that WE might be MADE the righteousness of GOd, in Him."
Sin is an infinite offense to the holiness of God, and there must be a payment to satisfy that offense. This is the entire concept of propitiation and atonement.
"Forgiveness" without blood payment is a meaningless word.-
Jesus "paying" in the sense of being wrongfully put to death, yes,
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.....Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. Eze.3:19.21
This is the righteousness of God and the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ. Continue to ignore it if you want.
-
Of course, it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly.....
That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again.
So tell me, what did Paul get wrong?
Paul didn't get anything wrong. Paul said Jesus died "according to the scriptures". I just cited Ezekiel to RabbiKnife. Why don't you look at what Ezekiel said and give me your interpretation of what God meant. Look at what Jesus did.
This is an imaginary distinction. If you claim to know the true™®© meaning of Scripture then you aren't just a professional theologian, you are perhaps the theologian. Well, that's quite the claim indeed. Of course, you could respond that there are others who, like you, haven't been beguiled by the commentaries of 'professional theologians', but since none of them exist here we can conclude there are no such people.
Oh, well God and the community of believers here have informed me that you're quite wrong. You couldn't possibly entertain that idea, though, since you imbue your view with particular divine inspiration.
I once thought like you do, because that's what I was taught. It was difficult learning the majority is wrong.
Ultimately, you didn't at all reply to what I said.
Do you see how these aren't relevant questions with respect to what I said?
You copied scriptures I cited without commenting on them so I ask you, was Jesus being punished as a sinner by his Father, or by men who didn't know him???
-
The penalty for my sin would be my own death,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:28
This is God's righteousness. Thankfully, he freely forgives anyone who desires forgiveness, but you say for your sin, someone else will die. You say the son or father will bear your iniquity. You're wrong.
No, the Son, Jesus Christ, has already borne and paid the penalty for my sin. "He was MADE sin for us, who knew no sin, that WE might be MADE the righteousness of GOd, in Him."
Sin is an infinite offense to the holiness of God, and there must be a payment to satisfy that offense. This is the entire concept of propitiation and atonement.
"Forgiveness" without blood payment is a meaningless word.-
Jesus "paying" in the sense of being wrongfully put to death, yes,
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.....Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. Eze.3:19.21
This is the righteousness of God and the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ. Continue to ignore it if you want.
I have no idea what that means. You grab verses out of their context willy-nilly from mostly the Old Testament and say "hey, I found this yellow thing, it must be a banana" without any seeming appreciation or analysis of the entirety of the new covenant, so I find myself utterly unable to make any sense out of anything you say.
I have yet to see you produce any meaningful response to the question of the meaning of Christ's sacrificial atonement in propitiation for our sins and the subsequent imputed righteousness of Christ for us.
-
Of course, it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly.....
That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again.
So tell me, what did Paul get wrong?
Paul didn't get anything wrong. Paul said Jesus died "according to the scriptures". I just cited Ezekiel to RabbiKnife. Why don't you look at what Ezekiel said and give me your interpretation of what God meant. Look at what Jesus did.
This is an imaginary distinction. If you claim to know the true™®© meaning of Scripture then you aren't just a professional theologian, you are perhaps the theologian. Well, that's quite the claim indeed. Of course, you could respond that there are others who, like you, haven't been beguiled by the commentaries of 'professional theologians', but since none of them exist here we can conclude there are no such people.
Oh, well God and the community of believers here have informed me that you're quite wrong. You couldn't possibly entertain that idea, though, since you imbue your view with particular divine inspiration.
I once thought like you do, because that's what I was taught. It was difficult learning the majority is wrong.
Ultimately, you didn't at all reply to what I said.
Do you see how these aren't relevant questions with respect to what I said?
You copied scriptures I cited without commenting on them so I ask you, was Jesus being punished as a sinner by his Father, or by men who didn't know him???
Jesus was made sin by his Father, killed by his Father, and resurrected by his Father for your benefit and mine. Yes, even though Jesus never committed a sin, the Father laid every single sin every single human in all of human history every commited on Jesus' back and sacrificed Jesus for us.
That is the glory of the incarnation, propitiation, atonement, and the resurrection.
-
That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again.
What did the Pharisees think? If they thought that declaring an entire group to be wrong then they would have been right, as that's an incredibly irresponsible claim.
Paul didn't get anything wrong. Paul said Jesus died "according to the scriptures". I just cited Ezekiel to RabbiKnife. Why don't you look at what Ezekiel said and give me your interpretation of what God meant. Look at what Jesus did.
But you just said professional theologians were a problem, so like, are they or aren't they because Paul is part of that group?
You can annoy RK with Ezekiel all you want, I'm not interested in those claims.
I once thought like you do, because that's what I was taught. It was difficult learning the majority is wrong.
lol no, sorry, you have no clue how it is that I think because you don't know me.
-
The penalty for my sin would be my own death,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:28
This is God's righteousness. Thankfully, he freely forgives anyone who desires forgiveness, but you say for your sin, someone else will die. You say the son or father will bear your iniquity. You're wrong.
With all due respect, I think you're making a mistake here. We do indeed pay a penalty for our sin, and we all therefore die. Jesus doesn't take away that penalty, and does not die to remove our own need to die.
What Jesus did was remove the *eternal penalty* associated with sin, which is eternal death. We do not have to experience that, and neither does Jesus have to experience eternal death for us.
So you're confusing Jesus eternal atonement with temporary punishments. Jesus suffered a temporal death for our eternal justification. We could not obtain eternal justification on our own, since our own record of sin prohibits us from doing so. Jesus had to do it *for us!*
-
The penalty for offending an infinitely holy God is an infinite punishment. Satisfaction of that sin debt requires an infinite payment.
Man, being finite or limited in quality is unable to satisfy an infinite penalty even in an eternity (quantity) of time future. The debt always exists if man pays for a bazillion years, as the punishment is not sated for the next "second" thereafter. As a result, our very bad theology that says that "sinners go to hell to pay for their sins" is not sufficient, as the penalty for the infinite sin against an infinitely holy God is never satisfied.
Jesus, being infinite in quality was able to satisfy an infinite penalty in a finite moment of time. And he did.
Physical death is not the penalty for sin, otherwise, the corollary would be universal salvation, which is clearly not taught in Romans.
Spiritual death -- separation from the Creator -- is the death that is the wage of sin.
Jesus experienced that infinity of spiritual death in a finite moment of time, thus satisfying the eternal and infinite wrath of God against sin for violation of his holiness, making our reconcilliation to God possible.
-
The penalty for offending an infinitely holy God is an infinite punishment. Satisfaction of that sin debt requires an infinite payment.
Man, being finite or limited in quality is unable to satisfy an infinite penalty even in an eternity (quantity) of time future. The debt always exists if man pays for a bazillion years, as the punishment is not sated for the next "second" thereafter. As a result, our very bad theology that says that "sinners go to hell to pay for their sins" is not sufficient, as the penalty for the infinite sin against an infinitely holy God is never satisfied.
Jesus, being infinite in quality was able to satisfy an infinite penalty in a finite moment of time. And he did.
Physical death is not the penalty for sin, otherwise, the corollary would be universal salvation, which is clearly not taught in Romans.
Spiritual death -- separation from the Creator -- is the death that is the wage of sin.
Jesus experienced that infinity of spiritual death in a finite moment of time, thus satisfying the eternal and infinite wrath of God against sin for violation of his holiness, making our reconcilliation to God possible.
I agree. A very interesting way to put it, and I concur. The punishment is *paid for* only by making an infinite payment. Nobody who has already sinned can *ever* make this payment.
On the other hand, the punishment for sin is death, and we do "pay" that penalty. We do not "pay for it" as in making an atonement for it, but we do "pay the price" for our misdeeds.
These are two different kinds of "payments," one to make an atonement, which only Christ could pay, and one to suffer the consequences for, which we all do in fact pay.
We just have to be careful how we use the word "pay" here, right?
-
I think we have to be more careful about how we use the word "death"!
-
I think we have to be more careful about how we use the word "death"!
Eternal Death = Damnation
Physical Death = Physical Death, preliminary to Eternal Judgment
This is not a problem with me.
Perhaps this is a slap back at my concern over your use of the word "Pay?" It was not intended to be a slap at you--just concern for any readers who look at your post and maybe fail to see the difference between Jesus' payment for our Salvation and our own need to "pay" for our sins, ie suffer the consequence of our sins by dying.
These are two different kinds of payments. And I can't help but notice you did not acknowledge the point, but instead decided to question the meaning of "death" in this conversation.
And it's true. There is a big difference between dying as a consequence of being sinners, and suffering Eternal Death as a consequence of rejecting the Lord. So I agree with you...I think?
-
Appeasing instead of destruction is propitiation...
So what was "destroyed" that resulted in God being appeased, so believers will not be destroyed for their sin, when they choose to believe in Jesus?
-
Paul said Jesus died "according to the scriptures". I just cited Ezekiel to RabbiKnife. Why don't you look at what Ezekiel said and give me your interpretation of what God meant. Look at what Jesus did.
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.....Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. Eze.3:19.21
This is physical death happening prematurely due to flagrant sin that is not being repented of. It can be averted, after being warned, by repentance.
You copied scriptures I cited without commenting on them so I ask you, was Jesus being punished as a sinner by his Father, or by men who didn't know him???
Jesus was not punished as a sinner, since he was sinless. The idea is that Jesus took our punishment upon himself, a sinless man, in order to experience what we deserved. That qualified him to forgive us, since suffering our punishment gives him the right to forgive those who caused him thus to suffer.
You see, it was not just his suffering our punishment that allowed him to forgive us, but more, that fact that all men in a sense caused him to suffer this punishment. His suffered and died because of what sinners did to him. And in that sense, we are, as sinners, all responsible for his death. His coming to earth made him vulnerable to sinful mankind, generally, including all sin in all men.
-
I have no idea what that means. You grab verses out of their context willy-nilly from mostly the Old Testament and say "hey, I found this yellow thing, it must be a banana" without any seeming appreciation or analysis of the entirety of the new covenant, so I find myself utterly unable to make any sense out of anything you say.
I have yet to see you produce any meaningful response to the question of the meaning of Christ's sacrificial atonement in propitiation for our sins and the subsequent imputed righteousness of Christ for us.
The Son showed his Fathers love for mankind by enduring the sinful treatment of mankind, but still willing to forgive such treatment. This is what propitiation is. This is what appeased his Father. This is what causes atonement, or being brought into oneness with God.
-
Jesus was made sin by his Father, killed by his Father, and resurrected by his Father for your benefit and mine. Yes, even though Jesus never committed a sin, the Father laid every single sin every single human in all of human history every commited on Jesus' back and sacrificed Jesus for us.
That is the glory of the incarnation, propitiation, atonement, and the resurrection.
The Father put his Son in a position where he was viewed as a sinner by men. Unjustly accursed, convicted and killed by men. That is the sin our Savior bore.
Look at Pro.6:16-19. All those sins, which God despises, his Son bore. And we all have committed such sins. All sin is against God.
-
What did the Pharisees think? If they thought that declaring an entire group to be wrong then they would have been right, as that's an incredibly irresponsible claim.
Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong.
But you just said professional theologians were a problem, so like, are they or aren't they because Paul is part of that group?
Paul was first schooled by Gamaliel, which is comparable to being taught in a prestigious Bible college. By that knowledge, Paul went about with the intent of killing the followers of Jesus.
You can annoy RK with Ezekiel all you want, I'm not interested in those claims.
Then ignore what God said and what Jesus did according to what his Father said.
lol no, sorry, you have no clue how it is that I think because you don't know me.
I'm just going by what you're saying.
-
Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong.
They weren't declared to be wrong about everything, no. They weren't even declared to be wrong about the totality of their religious and theological beliefs. They were declared to be hypocrites, and lacking love, etc., but that's something different to the concern at hand.
The fact is, to claim that theologians or theologians who write commentaries (except for theologians like Paul) are all, entirely, wrong, isn't responsible. Have you spoken with every theologian? Have you read every commentary? Of course not. And, I suppose the only way to support your claim is to argue something like:
- I've heard from God
- This is what God told me X, Y, Z means
- Therefore, everyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't agree with God and is therefore wrong
I don't dispute that this is entirely reasonable, should it actually be the case that someone hears from God about X, Y, Z. However, it then becomes the responsibility of the person claiming to have heard from God - or to be following the 'Spirit of God' - to demonstrate this claim, while the rest of God's people rigorously examine it.
The theology you're presenting here, which you claim follows from following the 'Spirit of God' (I would be careful about such claims, myself) isn't systematic, nor is it internally consistent. At least, you haven't demonstrated as much.
And it is, without a doubt, an inexcusable fallacy to suggest that because 'Our Lord and His Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong' this must therefore mean that all religious authorities are wrong, or even trend towards a place of hypocrisy, a lack of love, and so on.
Paul was first schooled by Gamaliel, which is comparable to being taught in a prestigious Bible college. By that knowledge, Paul went about with the intent of killing the followers of Jesus.
If I were you, I would have realised that the claim "theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly" is irresponsible, as it includes people like Paul in it. But no, Paul isn't a problem and he is a problem; ah, the theology of man vs. the theology of God! That's how you want to draw the distinction, right? But then we end up right back where we started: there are theologians who have understood the Spirit-inspired scriptures correctly and you're being irresponsible with your claims.
Then ignore what God said and what Jesus did according to what his Father said.
-
With all due respect, I think you're making a mistake here. We do indeed pay a penalty for our sin, and we all therefore die. Jesus doesn't take away that penalty, and does not die to remove our own need to die.
What Jesus did was remove the *eternal penalty* associated with sin, which is eternal death. We do not have to experience that, and neither does Jesus have to experience eternal death for us.
So you're confusing Jesus eternal atonement with temporary punishments. Jesus suffered a temporal death for our eternal justification. We could not obtain eternal justification on our own, since our own record of sin prohibits us from doing so. Jesus had to do it *for us!*
I just showed you from scripture that one man cannot bare the sins of another man. Each reaps what he sows. That's the righteousness of God. Since we know Jesus "bore our sins", something is wrong with mainstream Christianitys understanding of how Jesus bore our sins and that's what I'm showing you.
He bore our sins by having them inflicted on himself by mankind. He could not bare sin the way you're suggesting. Scripture doesn't allow it.
-
So what was "destroyed" that resulted in God being appeased, so believers will not be destroyed for their sin, when they choose to believe in Jesus?
I said "instead of" destruction. God was appeased by the conduct of his Son, loving people who hated him.
-
They weren't declared to be wrong about everything,
I never said they were. I said with respect to this issue. And you've made it clear you have no desire to rigorously examine what Ezekiel said.
-
I never said they were. I said with respect to this issue.
The magic of consistency:
- "I'm following what the Spirit of God says, not what theologians say."
- "Concerning this issue, theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly. Understanding comes from God."
- "That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." (In response to my stating that "it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly").
- "Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong."
At which point I wrote, "They weren't declared to be wrong about everything...".
But clearly, within the context of this discussion, you are indeed saying that theologians (wait, 'professional' theologians? or theologians who write commentaries?), just like the ruling religious authority in the 1st century, are wrong... about everything. What gets you there is this statement:
"That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." You can claim that you haven't explicitly "said they were", but in practice, that's how you construct your replies. You make a claim, I say it's irresponsible or ridiculous, and then you compare that claim to the religious authority of Jesus' day -- it could happen again!
Well, of course, it could, but yes, because "this issue" is that of the whole of theology, rather than some particular view of Ezekiel, unless you want to suggest that theologians are schizophrenic and seemingly able to follow the 'Spirit of God' everywhere except where your theology comes into conflict with accepted teaching.
Which, by the way, is no guarantee that a particular teaching is correct. Refer, for example, to my issues with Augustine's doctrinal formulation of original sin. Except there, unlike here, you'll find a Scripturally sound defence.
And you've made it clear you have no desire to rigorously examine what Ezekiel said.
Why are you assuming I haven't rigorously examined what Ezekiel said? You quoted a couple of verses out of context, made an assertion ("This is the righteousness of God and the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ.") then invited us to ignore you at our own peril.
Well, there's nothing there to examine as presented. What you're doing is demanding that we agree with you because you claim to be following 'the Spirit of God' and all the theologians are wrong. Okay, good luck with that. Just remember that tin hats amplify radio signals, rather than block them.
-
With all due respect, I think you're making a mistake here. We do indeed pay a penalty for our sin, and we all therefore die. Jesus doesn't take away that penalty, and does not die to remove our own need to die.
What Jesus did was remove the *eternal penalty* associated with sin, which is eternal death. We do not have to experience that, and neither does Jesus have to experience eternal death for us.
So you're confusing Jesus eternal atonement with temporary punishments. Jesus suffered a temporal death for our eternal justification. We could not obtain eternal justification on our own, since our own record of sin prohibits us from doing so. Jesus had to do it *for us!*
I just showed you from scripture that one man cannot bare the sins of another man. Each reaps what he sows. That's the righteousness of God. Since we know Jesus "bore our sins", something is wrong with mainstream Christianitys understanding of how Jesus bore our sins and that's what I'm showing you.
He bore our sins by having them inflicted on himself by mankind. He could not bare sin the way you're suggesting. Scripture doesn't allow it.
It doesn't seem you understand my argument, and this may explain why you take such a non-orthodox approach. Number one, I'm *not* saying that Jesus bore the punishment of other men the way you are describing it. He did not suffer *from his own sin!* And so, neither did he suffer as if he was a sinner.
Rather, he suffered *what he did not deserve,* since he was *not* a sinner! He came down and unavoidably suffered from sinners because he was God entering into a world of sinners. Sinners hate and oppose God!
So Jesus suffered from sinful men what happens to a godly man when he enters into a world of sinners. As such, he suffered what sinners deserve, and not what an innocent man deserves!
That being said, look at the orthodox language as it really means to describe it--not as you think I'm describing it. Jesus suffered the punishment that sinful men deserve, and not what he deserved.
And he did this so that he could bring God's righteousness to those who did not deserve it. To do this he suffered from sinful men what sinful men inflict upon God.
Isa 53.3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
Clearly, you are right that Jesus was not actually being "punished by God"--he was only considered as such by those who did not understand that he was a righteous man come to experience these things in order to bring his eternal righteousness and justification to us.
-
The magic of consistency:
- "I'm following what the Spirit of God says, not what theologians say."
- "Concerning this issue, theologians haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly. Understanding comes from God."
- "That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." (In response to my stating that "it's utter nonsense to suggest that 'theologians' as a group 'haven't understood the Spirit inspired scriptures correctly").
- "Our Lord and his Apostles declared the ruling religious authority to be wrong."
At which point I wrote, "They weren't declared to be wrong about everything...".
But clearly, within the context of this discussion, you are indeed saying that theologians (wait, 'professional' theologians? or theologians who write commentaries?), just like the ruling religious authority in the 1st century, are wrong... about everything. What gets you there is this statement:
"That's what the Pharisees thought and it's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again." You can claim that you haven't explicitly "said they were", but in practice, that's how you construct your replies. You make a claim, I say it's irresponsible or ridiculous, and then you compare that claim to the religious authority of Jesus' day -- it could happen again!
Well, of course, it could, but yes, because "this issue" is that of the whole of theology, rather than some particular view of Ezekiel, unless you want to suggest that theologians are schizophrenic and seemingly able to follow the 'Spirit of God' everywhere except where your theology comes into conflict with accepted teaching.
Which, by the way, is no guarantee that a particular teaching is correct. Refer, for example, to my issues with Augustine's doctrinal formulation of original sin. Except there, unlike here, you'll find a Scripturally sound defence.
Why are you assuming I haven't rigorously examined what Ezekiel said? You quoted a couple of verses out of context, made an assertion ("This is the righteousness of God and the gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ.") then invited us to ignore you at our own peril.
Well, there's nothing there to examine as presented. What you're doing is demanding that we agree with you because you claim to be following 'the Spirit of God' and all the theologians are wrong. Okay, good luck with that. Just remember that tin hats amplify radio signals, rather than block them.
[/quote]I didn't quote Ezekiel out of context. I wanted you to look at what he said and look at what our Savior did. They match perfectly. You said, "I'm not interested in those claims."
And while I do want people to consider what I'm saying, I'm nobody to demand anything of anyone.
-
It doesn't seem you understand my argument, and this may explain why you take such a non-orthodox approach. Number one, I'm *not* saying that Jesus bore the punishment of other men the way you are describing it. He did not suffer *from his own sin!* And so, neither did he suffer as if he was a sinner.
Rather, he suffered *what he did not deserve,* since he was *not* a sinner! He came down and unavoidably suffered from sinners because he was God entering into a world of sinners. Sinners hate and oppose God!
So Jesus suffered from sinful men what happens to a godly man when he enters into a world of sinners. As such, he suffered what sinners deserve, and not what an innocent man deserves!
That being said, look at the orthodox language as it really means to describe it--not as you think I'm describing it. Jesus suffered the punishment that sinful men deserve, and not what he deserved.
And he did this so that he could bring God's righteousness to those who did not deserve it. To do this he suffered from sinful men what sinful men inflict upon God.
Isa 53.3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
Clearly, you are right that Jesus was not actually being "punished by God"--he was only considered as such by those who did not understand that he was a righteous man come to experience these things in order to bring his eternal righteousness and justification to us.
I pretty much agree with what you've said here, except that Jesus didn't need to suffer on earth what he long suffered from heaven before that.
-
I didn't quote Ezekiel out of context. I wanted you to look at what he said and look at what our Savior did. They match perfectly. You said, "I'm not interested in those claims."
And while I do want people to consider what I'm saying, I'm nobody to demand anything of anyone.
Heh, I didn't say I wasn't interested in Ezekiel, but in your claims outside of the particular claim that did interest me, which was the conspiratorial view of theologians.