The Righteousness Of God

[Athanasius]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

I was just reading Hebrews 10 this morning.

This entire thread is simply mind-numbing.

[journeyman]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

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.

[journeyman]

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

[Athanasius]

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.

[Slug1]

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?

[Slug1]

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.

[Athanasius]

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?

[journeyman]

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?

[RabbiKnife]

How is the penalty for you sin paid for?

[journeyman]

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.

[journeyman]

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.

[Athanasius]

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?

[RabbiKnife]

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.-