Cross Reference
New member
You need to review what I wrote and let it say what it says instead of 'screwing around' with it.
ECT This is why I believe the Atonement played no favorites . . .
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
You need to review what I wrote and let it say what it says instead of 'screwing around' with it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nik,
you do know that a strong alt reading of 2 cor 5 says that he was made a sin offering, right?
you do know that a strong alt reading of 2 cor 5 says that he was made a sin offering, right?
themuzicman
Well-known member
We aren't saved because our sins are propitiated. We are saved because we have become justified before God. That requires the condition of faith (Romans 3:25)
Cross Reference
New member
What about sins not yet committed while in the process of working out my salvation with fear and trembling?? . . .or maybe not working them out with fear and trembling?? Would that not be a "sin of presumption" by me??
themuzicman
Well-known member
Sins not yet committed is a problem for atonement, not propitiation. Propitiation appeases God's wrath for the "sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)", and brings "justification to all men (Rom 5:18)."
Of course, our choice to believe is an ongoing condition of justification, and working out our salvation is a part of sustaining our faith.
A propitiated sin.
Cross Reference
New member
Sins not yet committed is a problem for atonement, not propitiation. Propitiation appeases God's wrath for the "sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)", and brings "justification to all men (Rom 5:18)."
Of course, our choice to believe is an ongoing condition of justification, and working out our salvation is a part of sustaining our faith.
A propitiated sin.
How so, since redemption/atonement did not but provide the enablement for justification of past sins? What about present and future sins? Can one continue to sin without penalty? What do we have going for us the OT saints did not have?
Here is something to think about to help you address the questions below:
The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever, so it takes a lot to show the logic and benefit.
The Crucifixion is described allegorically by Christ, Paul, Peter, John (in Revelations) and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment.
Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handle the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.
From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …
Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom.
God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.
Paul goes on to explain:
Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
I do not like the word “unpunished” since the same Greek word also means “undisciplined”.
So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.
God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.
If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent.
Here are some questions I used in my adult Bible class:
Roman 3 starting with Ro. 3:24
1. Prior to Christ going to the cross where some people forgiven of their sins and if so who, how and why?
2. (God “pass over sins” or as in the NIV “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”) so which sins in the past are these?
3. The OT gives lots of severe punishments for sins, so could/did “severe sins” go unpunished? Did God allow/want them to go unpunished? Why have these severe rules and punishments in the law?
4. Where the forgiven sins of those before the cross forgiven the exact same way as those after the cross?
5. If some sins where forgiven before the cross, was the cross needed to forgive sins?
6. From your own experience how hard was/is it for you to forgive the transgressions of your truly repentant child? Was/is there other action you have/had to see to that was harder to do? (What are/was it?)
7. Did you punish or discipline your children? (What would Dr. Dobson say?)
8. From your own experience with your children, if your child correctly accepted your most wise discipline and purely charitable forgiveness; was your relationship with your child better after or before the disobedience?
9. Is disciplining your child a learning maturing growing experience?
10. How could your rebellious/disobedient child stand “justified’ and “righteous” before you even today?
11. Look at the example Christ gives with the prodigal son (Luke 15: 11-32). Who is the kidnapper, what ransom was paid, who was set free, and could the son stand “justified” and/or “righteous” before the father?
12. Rev. 5: 9 “…and with your blood you purchased for God, persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Who did Christ pay?
13. What reason would Christ have for paying satan?
14. If God forgives our sins why would they still have to be paid for?
15. If Christ paid for our sins, why do they still need to be forgiven?
16. Atonement (propitiation) sacrifice can be for everyone with the ransom payment being offered but the kidnapper may refuse to accept the sacrifice, so it was made in vain for that kidnapper and the child is not freed?
35. RSV Ro 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, NIV Ro 3:24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. How can we be “justified” like we kept the Law without keeping the Law?
What is the relationship between being justified and being righteous?
36. “Redemption” is an interesting word, so what does it mean here?
37. If we are being paid for and set free: who is hoping us captive, what are we being held from, what is the ransom being paid, who is being paid the ransom (who is the kidnapper), what value/benefit would this ransom have to the kidnapper, and how does “faith” play into this?
38. Verse 25 might help explain “redemption”, but v.25 is not easy to understand, so what does this verse mean?
39. If Paul is conveying the idea of a “ransom” which the context might suggest than it would be in keeping with other times Paul, Peter, Christ, John and the Hebrew writers use the analogy of a ransom in describing atonement or what happened with the crucifixion, so who is being paid off?
40. “sacrifice of atonement”, “atonement cover on the ark of the covenant”, “expiation”, “mercy seat”, “propitiation” and “propitiatory sacrifice”, all refer to what God put forward with Christ, so what was God doing?
41. What are we specifically putting our “faith” in to have this atonement take place or does it take place without involving our faith and some of us just do not receive it?
42. If we do not receive it does it take place for us? Is that similar to God’s Love, forgiveness and mercy?
43. Why are we even involved?
44. Is this to help make God righteous or to show the righteousness God already has?
45. This one little phrase of Paul: “because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” becomes a thorn in the flesh for most theories of atonement. So what does it mean?
46. What does it mean for God to “pass over sins” or as in the NIV “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”? Does it mean accumulate them? Roll the sins forward? Forgiving the sins without doing something else that is needed and maybe can be accomplished with the cross?
47. Is God passing over and/or leaving the sins unpunished, mean all sins or just some sins and which ones did He pass over (leave unpunished)?
48. If you go back to the OT and see all the “punishments” there were for sins, does that look like God is passing over them?
49. There is a contrast in V.25 between what we have after the cross and what there was before the cross, so did Christ going to the cross solve the problem moving forward and/or did Christ crucifixion undo God’s passing over sin in the past?
50. If Christ by going to the cross eliminates God’s need to pass over sins than why did God ever pass over sins since “time” is not a factor (Christ went to the cross from the beginning of time), so what effect would Christ have on past sins God passed over?
51. V. 26 How is God shown as being right (fair/just) with Christ going to the cross? Is it fair/just to allow the innocent to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, and the guilty to go free?
52. V. 26 In what way do we become justified while those that were previously pasted over could not be justified?
The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever, so it takes a lot to show the logic and benefit.
The Crucifixion is described allegorically by Christ, Paul, Peter, John (in Revelations) and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment.
Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handle the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.
From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …
Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom.
God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.
Paul goes on to explain:
Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
I do not like the word “unpunished” since the same Greek word also means “undisciplined”.
So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.
God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.
If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent.
Here are some questions I used in my adult Bible class:
Roman 3 starting with Ro. 3:24
1. Prior to Christ going to the cross where some people forgiven of their sins and if so who, how and why?
2. (God “pass over sins” or as in the NIV “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”) so which sins in the past are these?
3. The OT gives lots of severe punishments for sins, so could/did “severe sins” go unpunished? Did God allow/want them to go unpunished? Why have these severe rules and punishments in the law?
4. Where the forgiven sins of those before the cross forgiven the exact same way as those after the cross?
5. If some sins where forgiven before the cross, was the cross needed to forgive sins?
6. From your own experience how hard was/is it for you to forgive the transgressions of your truly repentant child? Was/is there other action you have/had to see to that was harder to do? (What are/was it?)
7. Did you punish or discipline your children? (What would Dr. Dobson say?)
8. From your own experience with your children, if your child correctly accepted your most wise discipline and purely charitable forgiveness; was your relationship with your child better after or before the disobedience?
9. Is disciplining your child a learning maturing growing experience?
10. How could your rebellious/disobedient child stand “justified’ and “righteous” before you even today?
11. Look at the example Christ gives with the prodigal son (Luke 15: 11-32). Who is the kidnapper, what ransom was paid, who was set free, and could the son stand “justified” and/or “righteous” before the father?
12. Rev. 5: 9 “…and with your blood you purchased for God, persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Who did Christ pay?
13. What reason would Christ have for paying satan?
14. If God forgives our sins why would they still have to be paid for?
15. If Christ paid for our sins, why do they still need to be forgiven?
16. Atonement (propitiation) sacrifice can be for everyone with the ransom payment being offered but the kidnapper may refuse to accept the sacrifice, so it was made in vain for that kidnapper and the child is not freed?
35. RSV Ro 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, NIV Ro 3:24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. How can we be “justified” like we kept the Law without keeping the Law?
What is the relationship between being justified and being righteous?
36. “Redemption” is an interesting word, so what does it mean here?
37. If we are being paid for and set free: who is hoping us captive, what are we being held from, what is the ransom being paid, who is being paid the ransom (who is the kidnapper), what value/benefit would this ransom have to the kidnapper, and how does “faith” play into this?
38. Verse 25 might help explain “redemption”, but v.25 is not easy to understand, so what does this verse mean?
39. If Paul is conveying the idea of a “ransom” which the context might suggest than it would be in keeping with other times Paul, Peter, Christ, John and the Hebrew writers use the analogy of a ransom in describing atonement or what happened with the crucifixion, so who is being paid off?
40. “sacrifice of atonement”, “atonement cover on the ark of the covenant”, “expiation”, “mercy seat”, “propitiation” and “propitiatory sacrifice”, all refer to what God put forward with Christ, so what was God doing?
41. What are we specifically putting our “faith” in to have this atonement take place or does it take place without involving our faith and some of us just do not receive it?
42. If we do not receive it does it take place for us? Is that similar to God’s Love, forgiveness and mercy?
43. Why are we even involved?
44. Is this to help make God righteous or to show the righteousness God already has?
45. This one little phrase of Paul: “because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” becomes a thorn in the flesh for most theories of atonement. So what does it mean?
46. What does it mean for God to “pass over sins” or as in the NIV “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”? Does it mean accumulate them? Roll the sins forward? Forgiving the sins without doing something else that is needed and maybe can be accomplished with the cross?
47. Is God passing over and/or leaving the sins unpunished, mean all sins or just some sins and which ones did He pass over (leave unpunished)?
48. If you go back to the OT and see all the “punishments” there were for sins, does that look like God is passing over them?
49. There is a contrast in V.25 between what we have after the cross and what there was before the cross, so did Christ going to the cross solve the problem moving forward and/or did Christ crucifixion undo God’s passing over sin in the past?
50. If Christ by going to the cross eliminates God’s need to pass over sins than why did God ever pass over sins since “time” is not a factor (Christ went to the cross from the beginning of time), so what effect would Christ have on past sins God passed over?
51. V. 26 How is God shown as being right (fair/just) with Christ going to the cross? Is it fair/just to allow the innocent to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, and the guilty to go free?
52. V. 26 In what way do we become justified while those that were previously pasted over could not be justified?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I wrong in saying you believe redemption was universal because it was all of God and did not require something of man?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Yes. I not trying to set up some detailed case but just get basic ground rules laid. The matter is complex. Christ not only propitiated, He sanctified with His sacrifice.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
No argument from me. But there is a whole lot wrapped up in the cross. I haven't gotten most of it straight (...yet...)
Cross Reference
New member
How so?
Interplanner
Well-known member
themuzicman,
re your distinction about propitiation. Are you saying propitiation is there because of what christ accomplished but not effective for an individual until he believes that?
re your distinction about propitiation. Are you saying propitiation is there because of what christ accomplished but not effective for an individual until he believes that?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:9-14
And yet still an appeasement
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:25
And even more forcefully :
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
I John 2:2
Interestingly (and I don't have the ability to dig into it) the "mercyseat" of Hebrews 9:5 is the same word as used in Romans 3:25...
Cross Reference
New member
Very good. I agree. Can you separate out that part which is scripturally affirmed from that which we might suppose to be and in addition, aspirational?
I see this as being both: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all [including future sins]." Maybe you might explain how that can only be "The Way"?
themuzicman
Well-known member
It's effective for the individual in that his sins are propitiated, but God requires justification, not just propitiation
themuzicman
Well-known member
Atonement is an Old Covenant concept for the sacrifice of animals for past sins. That's not what Christ accomplished.
Christ propitiated all sins for all of mankind everywhere, once time for everything, which brought justification to all men (1 John 2:2, Romans 5:18.) Our redemption, then, is based in justification, not atonement.
The Old Covenant was not a basis for salvation. Indeed, they had the same things going for them as we do. They didn't have the benefit of understanding how faith would result in justification.
What advantage did Israel have? Much in every way. See Romans 3:1-2, Romans 9:1-5.
But Israel also entered the Mosaic Covenant to be the "people of God" on the earth, and the Old Covenant to them was a unique form of sanctification, which was to be observed as an expression of their faith. Unfortunately, the Old Covenant law became their focus (post-exile), and they lost sight of living by faith, and began to depend on obedience to the law as the basis for entering the Kingdom of God, and thus missed the election of the New Covenant "whoever believes", and missed their Messiah (See Romans 9:24-ff).
Thus, as we see in Romans 3:3-23 and Romans 9:6-23, Israel, in spite of all it was given, still fell short of the glory of God, and, with the exception of the subgroup that were drawn and then responded in faith, became the pot prepared for glory.
themuzicman
Well-known member
There is a lot wrapped up on our being justified (by faith), and as a result reconciled to God.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
At this point I would have to say I don't distinguish between scriptural and added. Rather I see the propitiation, appeasement, expiation, satisfaction as well as sanctification all wrapped up in the same atonement. All this is aimed (as I read it) at us and God.
That is, it is first of all aimed at God in the sense that there is satisfaction made for sin. It is a penalty taken that (for whatever reason) MUST be given for sin. I can't see it as arbitrary or something God can just waive (again...for whatever reason) but that must be done for more than just the purpose of checking some heavenly checkbox (if you will forgive the rather trite expression of something that is very weighty). So when I say "aimed at God" I mean the atonement was made for sin with God's view of punishment in mind. I guess this could be said to summarize the component of the atonement that deals with justification.
Then it was aimed at us. As Hebrews 10 says, we are sanctified by the will of God through the sacrifice of His son. That sanctification seems associated with maturity (thus the "perfect") and so shows that this is a process that doesn't happen instantaneously. Thus sanctification.
I don't see it so much addressing sin directly. That is, the wiping out of sin as an independent thing. It's not as though sin is totally gone to be no more of an existential threat in a universal objective way. We are still subject to passions and temptations etc..., but the blood of Christ has taken care of all that (I know someone who even believes that in the eschatological Kingdom of God there is at least a reminder of sin per Isaiah 66:24 - I don't go that far). But as sanctification takes time, so does the ultimate elimination of "all that offends". Thus, when I read the Messianic prophecy to Daniel - and specifically Daniel 9:24 - I see the whole "end of sins" to be accomplished even though it may not be accomplished in the sense we might want it to be accomplished (sin as an external force and element eradicated from all nature and existence so that there is no possibility of it affecting us). That is, I think, because sin is not so much a "thing" to be eradicated (like a virus) but an influence. So Christ was victorious on the cross, but to be testified in due time. Satan, in the meantime, has already "fallen like lightning from heaven".
So I don't really know if I am more in line with the Christus Victor or penal substitution understanding. I believe the atonement is ultimately universal only in the sense that those for whom Christ atoned will ultimately be in the Kingdom with Him and ultimately all things that "offend" will be cast out. There will be an impassable gulf. Will sin be "destroyed"? In the sense that it's influence has been entirely cast out of the Kingdom, it will have been destroyed for those in the Kingdom. For those without? Their end is to be burned.
Hope that makes at least some sense. This is not a topic that I claim a lot of depth of understanding in - and I am sure at some level (maybe even the most superficial) I am contradicting myself.
I'm not sure what you mean. Did I answer this (at least in part) above?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Don't know why you exclude atonement as something christ accomplished. Read Hebrews? What major difference is there between propitiation and atonement?
Cross Reference
New member
Do you consider "In the Lord" as being the same as "In Christ"? What does it take to be in either?
Considering the two claims one might say of himself: are both by imputation or impartation?