Inside the Atonement: What Christ Actually Did on the Cross

Minister Monardo · Friday at 10:30 AM

Arial-byGrace said:
There are five words that show up in Scripture that pertain to the atonement Jesus made for sinners. In my earliest years of my walk in Christ, I attended many churches because I traveled a lot. And I found a disturbing thing that judging from interaction with Christians on forums and in person, that it is still prevalent. And that is a lack of in-depth teaching on these five words. The result is that even though the words are familiar, a true understanding of them is absent and therefore not applied to what Christ was actually accomplishing on the cross and why, and the full depth and glory of the work of Christ on the cross is not seen.

Too often the view of the cross is simply "Christ died on the cross providing forgiveness of my sins." What he did was simply, die on the cross, but little is known of what he was doing on that cross.

Those five words are:

Substitution

Ransom

Propitiation

Imputation

Justification

What I Will attempt to do here is examine each of these words in connection with the person and work of Christ on that cross. I will examine each of them in separate posts to shorten the length of each post.

John 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.
Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1 Corinthians 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—
and righteousness and sanctification and redemption—
The Cross without the Resurrection is but empty promises...
Philippians 3:
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection,
and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death
of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
I realize that your focus was the Cross, but to isolate from the Resurrection/Ascension,
in my mind at least, makes comprehending the Cross more difficult.

Arial-byGrace · Friday at 10:42 AM

Minister Monardo said:
I realize that your focus was the Cross, but to isolate from the Resurrection/Ascension,
in my mind at least, makes comprehending the Cross more difficult.

Yes, I was focusing on the work of Christ on the cross. And it is not isolated in and of itself from the resurrection and ascension. but part of it. The resurrection is essential to the Christian faith as Paul so strongly emphasizes in 1 Cor 15. No resurrection, no gospel. The resurrection of Christ is evidence of God accepting that work on the cross, and the ground upon which our hope of our future resurrection rests on. The ascension is his coronation as God's King on Zion (Ps 2). His earthly work finished and the beginning of his mediatorial work of the New Covenant.

Arial-byGrace · Friday at 12:48 PM

The Righterzpen said:
"The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ." Revelaiton 11:15

I don't disagree with everything you said above regarding Gen 6. I believe that it is not saying that fallen angels mated with human women but that it speaks of the righteous line of Seth (through whom the seed that is Christ comes) (Gen 5) marrying with the line of Cain and the offspring being corrupted just as what happened when God forbade the Israelites from taking wives of the Gentiles and giving their daughters to them. They disobeyed and became idol worshipers. But I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with explaining the meaning of Satan being "ruler of this world".

I don't think that statement means Satan is sovereign over the nations as there is only one sovereign. It means all nations are affected by the fall, all nations are sinners, there is no escaping the condition we and this world are in. Not legislation, or governments, or laws, or outlawing the burning of fossil fuel. or anything else. Only the redemptive work of Christ and his return when every evil and evil thing will be destroyed. Torm up by the roots and thrown in the fire.

There is nothing happening in the world, nor has there ever been. that was not under the sovereign control of God and working steadily towards his purpose.

More later.

Arial-byGrace · Friday at 3:26 PM

The Righterzpen said:
If this theiory has truthful points in it:
then.... other theory on "darkeness upon the face of the deep" the bottomless pit and the Lake of Fire at the recreation of this cosmos. And Lucifer having been the "covering cherub" that was suppose to guard the uppoer cosmos from the "darkeness of the deep" ("evil"); these passages that have been "kicking around in our heads" now maybe have a more complete context?

@Arial-byGrace can you think of any more Bible verses to add to.. support or negate this theory?

It probably does have some truthful points in it. I didn't read all of it. Maybe when I get time I will go to the post and respond there. So, here I will just say this:

We don't know the origins of evil and the reason we don't know is because God does not tell us. Evil happened whenever the first being, whatever that being was, committed an act of rebellion against God and in whatever way he did so. I do not believe it began in the Garden of Eden, that is when it came into this creation. Our world is not the only creation. Was Satan the first to rebel? Don't know. Are angels and people the only two beings who can rebel against God? Don't know. We can certainly surmise that is the case simply because Jesus calls him the father of lies.

However, using the "beginning" in the creation account as the beginning of everything I believe is incorrect. It only refers to the creation of our world and all that is in it. We know from Scripture that angels were already created and we know the serpent was already created.

The Righterzpen said:
And Lucifer having been the "covering cherub" that was suppose to guard the uppoer cosmos from the "darkeness of the deep" ("evil"); these passages that have been "kicking around in our heads" now maybe have a more complete context?

I find no biblical support for this. Not that Lucifer was the covering cherub, or that he was supposed to guard the upper cosmos from the "darkness of the deep" of that "darkness" refers to evil when Gen says, "darkness was over the face of the deep".

timothyu · Friday at 6:32 PM

Deuteronomy 32:8–9: "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He divided mankind, He fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God."

This idea is supported by references to the divine council in Psalms 82 and Daniel 10, where these beings are described as ruling over nations.

timothyu · Friday at 9:30 PM

Light cannot exist without darkness and vice versa. Opposite sides of the same coin, hence the Tree. Nothing in creation can exist without it's opposite. Created beings such as mankind or elohim are composed of each and have the ability to follow either, yet for man that did not happen until they became self aware of themselves and those two natures. From then on, unlike other creatures of creation like the family pets who remain unaware of self and the fact 'they are naked', we chose and taught our will based on that knowledge. Man's unwillingness to follow the light of God sets us apart. Jesus was both elohim and man yet followed nothing but the Will of the Father, thus allowing God to open the door for all mankind to also repent of self-interest and come to His Kingdom choosing the light.

"Who do people say I am" applies to religion also as man continually makes assumptions and makes it over to serve us rather than the will of God. Jesus said His church would be truth from the Father and built upon that rock , not the assumptions of man or man's religions. We were once condemned for taking it upon ourselves to determine our lives. God has given us the opportunity to repent of this and let Him take the lead once again. Our choice. One only need look at the politics of man, especially today to understand how backwards we are. God has given us the opportunity to repent of this and let Him take the lead once again. Our choice. One only need look at the politics of man, especially today to understand how backwards we are.

Arial-byGrace · Saturday at 12:57 PM

The Righterzpen said:
It seems to me that "in the beginning was the Word; and the Word was God...." doesn't seem to imply that anything materially existed besides God. (John 1:1) Assuming for the sake of truth, that Scripture would state that if there was somehting "in the beginning" (with) God as opposed to "was the Word..."

I'm not sure I follow the train of thought.

The Righterzpen said:
The other issue is; it's pretty clear that time began "in the beginning" too. And not sure how well any material carbon based organism (or at least as we understand the material world) would be able to exist without the establishment of time. Seeing how "the beginning" requirest the measurement of time.

Existing in God's knowledge outside of time and in his self-existence, is a different category to how that knowledge is manifested in time. Time is a boundary set in place by God. It is the boundary he places all creatures and creation itself in, for his purpose. He did not invent carbon-based organism or anything else in our material world within time. He spoke it into existence suitable for time and matter. That is how my mind would imperfectly say it.

The Righterzpen said:
There are passages in Isaiah 60:19-21, Revelation 22:5 which state there is no more darkness in the recreated cosmos. Whcih could we make the argument that it would be a fair assessment to say that "darkness" was at least a sign of "evil's" presence? Particularly seeing how the root word there in Genesis means "to withhold light"

Scripture does use "darkness" as a symbol of evil or chaos, but it is not always used that way. Sometimes it just means a literal absence of light (light withheld). At creation the light was literal, first spoken by God "Let there be light---" and then a material and measure of time with literal sun, moon, stars. We must be careful to not over spiritualize Scripture or see everything as analogous.

Arial-byGrace · Saturday at 1:09 PM

The Righterzpen said:
I've heard the "righteous line of Seth" explaination too. Where the idea of marrying into the line of Cain falls down though; is that from the point Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. Everyone from them on down were sinners. Thus the "righteous line of Seth" argument doesn't really make sense; as the only one in that righteous line was actualy Christ.

Seth was the "seed bearer" and so was Noah. By righteous line of Seth I mean what is seen in Gen 5 immediately preceeding the statement of Gen 6 concering the "sons of God" and "daughters of men".

Seth was the "seed bearer" and the geneology in Gen 5 follows that "seed bearing" line all the way to Noah. (This can be checked in the geneaoloies of Jesus. In Gen 4 it says this 25-26

25And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointedg for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” 26To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

So I do ot mean that any of those people were without sin when I say the "righteous line of Seth"

BNR32FAN · Saturday at 1:20 PM

Arial-byGrace said:
Ransom

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Col 1:13-14).

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."(Mark 10:45)

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Tim 2:5-6)

A ransom is a price paid by a free person to deliver another person from slavery. Or a debt that is not owed paid for the one who owes the debt in order to set him free of the debt.

Let's look at the Col verse more closely. A domain is an authority or jurisdiction. A transfer is a relocation from one realm to another. So, we have a kingdom transfer, not simply a moral change. Salvation is not merely forgiveness it is a jurisdictional transfer. Taken right out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of the Son.

Jesus gave himself, his own body and blood, his own life to pay the ransom that would release us from bondage to/in sin.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives--- (Luke 4:18)
A captive is in bondage to the captor.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked---carrying out the desires of the body and the mind and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)
By nature, is an inherent condition, not learned behavior. Dead is inability, not mere weakness. See also Romans 8:7-8 and 1 Cor 2:14.

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death---? (Romans 6:16-17)
Paul describes bondage as slavery not neutrality.

On the cross Jesus substituted himself in our place as a ransom for our deliverance from darkness, bringing us into the light of life.

You said God has a desire to save some sinners. Do you think that there are some that He doesn’t want to save?

timothyu · Saturday at 2:10 PM

Force somebody to love you and they won't remain faithful for long. God will not force the issue and sadly many think they don't need Him to control the chaos that their lives create.

Arial-byGrace · Saturday at 4:16 PM

BNR32FAN said:
You said God has a desire to save some sinners. Do you think that there are some that He doesn’t want to save?

Since there is to be a judgement and those who are not redeemed will go to hell, according to Scripture, the only conclusion is that he doesn't save everyone. If God is both omnipotent and sovereign, he does whatever he pleases---and that too according to Scripture.

The Liturgist · Saturday at 7:08 PM

Arial-byGrace said:
I readily admit that my simply unqualified answer to the question who got paid of "God" was curt and left unexplained. At the time, which was over a week ago, I was fed up and exhausted from responses that came with little to no understanding of Scripture and no willingness to actually engage with anything I said but merely ridicule it on fallacious, unsupported grounds. It has taken me this long to dare come back into the non-sensical fray.

The OP is not about PSA per se, but the work that Christ accomplished on the cross. The first three presented with explanation were substitution, ransom, and propitiation. I showed exactly why one flowed directly into the next to produce the last two, justification and imputation. I really do not want to go over the whole thing again so I suggest, if you really care, to read through them again in order and address comments, correction, questions, whatever, at the end of each section. pertaining to that section. Trying to isolate one rung of the "ladder" and attacking it with overstatements and caricature arguments such as you have presented here, while removing the rungs that came before does just what one would expect if they did the same thing to an actual ladder.

You misunderstand me. I am by no means trying to shoot down your thesis, which in contrast to Anselmian satisfaction theology and its Reformation offshoot, penal substitutionary atonement, is essentially correct. Rather, I am seeking to clarify certain important points concerning the nature of the ransom as a subject of semantic limitation.

I would also note your approach to the Cross, while sweeping, and refreshingly correct, does not include several important elements: Christus victor, recapitulation, Incarnational theology, all of which were central to the Patristic understanding of what happened on the Cross - Christ as fully God and fully Man, completing on the Cross with “it is finished” that process which began with “let us create man in our image”, or as St. Athanasius (of the Nicene Creed and the 27 book New Testament) eloquently put it in De Incarnatione, God became man so that man could become god.” Which is to say, sons of God by adoption, inheriting eternal life, so that which was heretofore reserved to God Himself, the Holy Trinity, is now dispensed in the body and blood of Christ, in whom the fullness of God dwelled bodily.

BNR32FAN · Saturday at 9:46 PM

Arial-byGrace said:
Since there is to be a judgement and those who are not redeemed will go to hell, according to Scripture, the only conclusion is that he doesn't save everyone. If God is both omnipotent and sovereign, he does whatever he pleases---and that too according to Scripture.

I agree that not everyone will be saved but that doesn’t mean that God didn’t want them to repent and be saved.

Arial-byGrace · Sunday at 8:17 AM

BNR32FAN said:
I agree that not everyone will be saved but that doesn’t mean that God didn’t want them to repent and be saved.

Explain to me how, with a proper Doctrine of God---that is God as who he reveals himself to be in Scripture---one can surmise that God even has "wants".

Arial-byGrace · Sunday at 9:03 AM

The Righterzpen said:
Scripture indicates that nothing existed before God created anything other than God Himself. So the notion would be that if "evil" is the absence of good; then evil could not exist in the "space" with God because being omnipresent, He would wholly fill the "space". And all that would be present was "good". (There's no absence of good; because God is everywhere.)

I get your point and I agree. God cannot do evil so if there is only God, no evil is manifest. On the other hand, only God is the measure of good and that measure is himself. Anything he creates is good, but if he creates something with moral agency---which he did, angels and humans that we know of---now they have a responsibility of perfect moral obedience. And if there is present with them in the Garden of Eden, one who has already transgressed moral obedience, which there was, and God gives them commands and duties, which he did; dominion over the earth to care for it. And one specific command that if disobeyed will change the course of history, and they disobey, the result is a corrupted creature who will now someday die, and who loses that face-to-face relationship with God, and the two, man and God, become enemies. So that is the origin of evil in our world.

One caution, and I know you use the word "space" because we have no other word, but it could lead to the conclusion of next steps that God is the space.

The Righterzpen said:
That's if we were to surmise that "space" even existed?

Which we can't surmise because if space existed God would have to create it. The truth of the matter is that it reaches into places our mind cannot attain. We have nothing to compare eternal self-existence to so we have no way to "see" it with full understanding/knowledge. let alone put into words.

The Righterzpen said:
And here's what I think initiates the recreation of the cosmos when Christ returns. He "comes in glory" and any corruption would not be able to stand in His presence. Thus the necessity to raise the cosmos incorruptible. Thus again God's presence "fills" the "space".

I would say it is the purpose of the first creation to arrive at the place where the source of evil is destroyed forever. We tend to look at our redemption as the central purpose of God. But that leads directly to the questions that constantly crop up and are debated. If God is omniscient then he knew man would fall, so why did he make him that way? Or versions of the question regarding who "created" evil.

But if we look at the end of the story previewed in Is. 11 and shown if Rev 21-22, the central purpose is the destruction of evil, and the central this purpose from Gen -Rev is Christ. He does this through Jesus redeeming men. It is such a perfect and awesome plan.

Are you familiar with the Covenant of Redemption?

I have to take a coffee break but will return to finish responding to the rest of your post.

Arial-byGrace · Sunday at 10:03 AM

The Righterzpen said:
Not sure what you mean by "God not inventing" ... "within time"; because as soon as the duality of "dark" and "light" exist; that sets "the days" which is the framework by which we exist "in time". And as for us being created entities; I don't think it's possible for us to exist "outside of time" (or at least in the sense of God's eternal existence, before He created anything.)

I mean that the properties of things created (matter) is not an invention by God. Those things we deem, of necessity, in science as biology, physics, mathematics etc. We discover them, but they always existed in the knowledge, and wisdom, and purpose of God, before they were placed inside material objects that he created.

As to "dark" and "light" I see your statement as counter to the creation account. Light came forth to dispel the darkness that was over the face of the deep. before the markers of time of day and night. Time markers.

We weren't created outside of time and therefore did not exist as created outside of time. But God has to know us before e creates us. That is all I am capable of saying on that subject. I can say that much because that much is revealed to us by God in his word. I can't say more because he does not say more in his word---unless of course I have simply not yet been able to connect dots that are at the moment invisible to me. That is certainly possible.

The Righterzpen said:
Granted the next thing I'm going to say is strictly philosophical because I have no idea if the "space" God existed in before creating anything still exists? I'm going to guess that the answer to that is "no" because of the Incarnation. The incarnation seems to have added a dimension to God's existence that required "space". I.E. assuming "God is Spirit" would transcend a three demential space to exist in.

You are correct in that nothing was taken away from God in the incarnation, but rather humanity was added to the eternal Son. An absolute necessity for humans to be redeemed as he came as a substitute. He had to be of the same kind as those he substituted for. And he had to enter into time, the plan of redemption had to take place in time---that is historically reality, and in history (time).

The Righterzpen said:
Of course though understanding that none of us have any context to put that into because... I'm not sure we can exist outside of three demential space at all.

We can't because we don't. We are what God created us to be and nothing else is possible.

The Righterzpen said:
Yet if darkness is "light withheld" and evil is "the absence of good"; I'm not sure logically that one could have it both ways. It would kind of be like saying "light is darkness and darkness is light" / "good is evil and evils is good".

I don't follow your logic that would arrive at that conclusion. Darkness being light withheld and evil being the absence of good are two different categories and context determines the interpretation. "Darkness being light withheld" is the definition of literal "darkness". "The absence of good" is the definition of what would fall into the category of what is evil. And God is the measure of "good". There are places in Scripture where "darkness" is used in a poetic analogous sense for ignorance, evil, sin. I.e. we are God takes us out of the kingdom off darkness and brings us into the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Col). There are places where Jesus is referred to as the light of the world. That is not daylight but the source of all that is good. So context determines the category and the usage.

The Righterzpen said:
I don't think there's any way in the corrupt world of eliminating that duality? Even God incarnate in human flesh was still subject to the consequence of that duality perpetuating forward through time. Jesus still aged, although being immortal; he'd never die outside of his own volition to do so.

There isn't. ??

The Righterzpen said:
Which.... actually could only be accomplished through the justice demanded of His holiness. There'd be no point to being incarnated if the intent wasn't to die.

Of course his intent was to die---in our place. It may just be my struggling with following, but I am undergoing a bit mental whiplash here as it seems the conversation has slipped off stream of my post and meagered into a complex series of category switches.

The Righterzpen said:
Hum... does this make the "seed bearer line" metaphoric then? The seed of Abraham is Christ. Although, like you said about analogous; both Christ and God's righteousness... (literally) live in the created world. And if "the seed bearer line" is indicative of the elect; (predicated upon the atonement) "the seed of Christ" being the material body that died and rose again; there is a "real world action" to thus "mechanism" that makes one born again. Scripture says that's the Spirit of God.

My suggestion here would be for you to return to why it was that I brought up the seed and seed bearer and keep the response within that framework instead of throwing it into a whole other framework not identified or the reason for doing so not identified. I was not identifying the "seed bearer line" in order to make a claim that that phrase applied to the elect. It does not. I gave it as an interpretive tool to the statement in Gen 6, "the sons of God went into the daughters off men".

And here you are suggesting that what I said made the "seed bearer line" metaphoric, something about Christ and God's righteousness living in the created world. and that I am saying it is indicative of the elect. And the "seed of Christ" being the material body that died and rose again in real world action. None of that is in any way related to why I brought up the lineage of Seth being given in Gen 4 and 5. Nor is my actual purpose in any way related to the previous posts on "darkness", "light" or "time". They are all separate posts dealing with the post being quoted on the topic being discussed in the post being quoted. To jumble them all together like you have as one subject, one category, makes an unintelligible mish mash.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 10:09 AM

Arial-byGrace said:
Explain to me how, with a proper Doctrine of God---that is God as who he reveals himself to be in Scripture---one can surmise that God even has "wants".

Because while God is unchanging, He is enough like us so that we are created in His image, and so that He could become incarnate and put on our humanity uniting it to His divinity hypo-statically without change, confusion, separation, or diviision. He abides in three persons, who have a Divine Will, a plan for our salvation, and in the person of the Logos, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, God also has a human will.

So in addition to a divine will, via the ancient Christological principle of communicatio idiomatum, which in recent times has been stressed by Lutherans in response to crypto-Nestorianism from within and without, and which is also heavily stressed by the ancient Eastern Orthodox and especially the Oriental Orthodox, God also experiences human longing, for Christ as the New Adam, who is fully God, is also the perfect Human.

The error that denies Christ has a human will is Monothelitism, and the error of denying that the humanity of Christ translates to His deity is Nestorianism, both of which are serious Christological errors (and which wrap around into co-dependence since Nestorianism in its most extreme form presupposes a unifying will that united the human and divine prosopon). The irony of that is Monothelitism, which also resembles Apollonarianisnm (the idea Christ has a human body but a divine soul, which the Nicene Creed was revised in 381 to exclude, along with Pneumatomachy (denial of the deity or personhood of the Holy Spirit as part of the Trinity, and Semi-Arianism) was that Monothelitism was proposed as a way of achieving pan-Orthodox reunion, but it failed, causing schisms in both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (one of which, might still exist, the Syriac Orthodox-Maronite Catholic schism being thought to have originated over a Maronite embrace of Monothelitism, which to be clear, Maronites do not believe at present and have not since at least the time they entered into communion with the Pope of Rome.

Speaking of which, Pope Honorius I became the only Pope to be anathematized by an ecumenical council for heresy at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople, which is recognized by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

As for Scripture, a simple reading of it indicates God has desires; what is more, God engages in long projects (like saving mankind) and is described as long-suffering, which can be interpreted as patience or perhaps as sorrow at those who refuse His infinite love being a component of his unchanging divine essence.

Our God is not the God of the Druze or certain Islamic sects or Unitarians, devoid of attributes; our God can and should be anthropomorphologized, because God became Man for our salvation, according to the Nicene Creed. This fact is clearly stated in the Gospel of John, the Pauline Epistles, even the names of our Lord (Emanuel - God With Us, and Yeshua, the Aramaic of Joshua, Hellenized and Anglicized as Jesus, meaning “YHWH Saves”).

Arial-byGrace · Sunday at 5:01 PM

The Righterzpen said:
The propensity to transgress had to "come from somewhere" though. Somewhere outside of the good intention God created with. Could any creature created "good" generate out of "only good" "evil"? And thus the framework I'm thinking of as to why "the absence of good" is "evil" could be an "opposite reaction" byproduct of God's creative action.

I actually explained that here:

Arial-byGrace said:
On the other hand, only God is the measure of good and that measure is himself. Anything he creates is good, but if he creates something with moral agency---which he did, angels and humans that we know of---now they have a responsibility of perfect moral obedience. And if there is present with them in the Garden of Eden, one who has already transgressed moral obedience, which there was, and God gives them commands and duties, which he did; dominion over the earth to care for it. And one specific command that if disobeyed will change the course of history, and they disobey, the result is a corrupted creature who will now someday die, and who loses that face-to-face relationship with God, and the two, man and God, become enemies. So that is the origin of evil in our world.

The Righterzpen said:
Now, obviously because God possessed the knowledge of evil; we know that "evil" "existed", at least in theory; even in the absence of any material creation.

Evil doesn't exist as an entity. It is an action contrary to God's holiness and we as his image bearers are obligated to bear that image. Satan's rebellion against God was to leave his assigned duties and position, even though he was not an image bearer.

The Righterzpen said:
Agreed, the central purpose of the design of the cosmos was to destroy evil; and in doing so prevents the "reinfection" of hecorruption of the recreated cosmos.

Exactly. That is why he created humanity mortal (able to die) but wouldn't as long as he had access to the Tree of Life, and corruptible (not corrupt but able to be corrupted). It is Christ's resurrection and his glorified body that guarantees ours. He the firstfruits of the resurrection.

The Righterzpen said:
I know there was a divine plan among the persons of the Godhead that existed before action was put to the creation plan. Assuming that's what's meant by Covenant of Redemption.

Yes. But it was a divine covenant. The Father would send, Jesus would do the work, the Holy Spirit would apply that work and seal the believer, and bring about sanctification. The plan is what we see unfolding in history.

The Righterzpen said:
Light coming forth to dispel darkness though would mean darkness preexisted light and I don't see how that's possible; as nothing existed before God was. And light can't expel something that doesn't exist prior to lights existence.

That darkness that was over the earth simply means God had not yet brought light to it. It does not speak to the pre-existence of darkness. Darkness is not something that exists, it is the absence of something that does exist. Take the darkness of a shadow. It is only dark because something is blocking the light. If nothing is blocking the light, there is no shadow.

The Righterzpen said:
Thus why it makes the most sense that "darkness" comes about as the "reaction" to God's action of creating. Thus why I think the "darkness / light" duality, is not only the commencement of something created; but also the commencement of time. Because darkness and light both existed before God separated them into "day" and "night".

Not on the earth because he hadn't created it yet. He separated them into day and night on the earth and for the earth.

The Righterzpen said:
Well first, we'd need to define what purpose the "seed bearer" idea occupies. Jesus tells Nicodemus "You must be born from above." If Spiritual rebirth is the requirement for redemption; what's the point of there being a "seed bearer" and what is the "seed" that bearer is bearing? All humanity, except Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit; came from Adam. And this included Seth. So the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" all come from the same "seed".

That is not the first thing. The first thing is why I mentioned the seed bearing line of Seth that is given in Gen4 and 5 and how it relates to the "sons of God" in Gen 6. You have switched from the category of it intent to "what is meant by the seed bearer and jumped again in one sentence later to Nicodemus and being born again. Then to spiritual rebirth and redemption and back again to "what is the purpose of "seed bearer", and then back farther to "therefore, it can't apply to Gen 6 and "sons of God" and "daughters of men". Yikes!

So once again, providing a cogent response to such a jumble of collapsed categories is impossible. I tell you these things out of kindness, because evidently you are not aware you are doing it. An editor would have a field day with it. So, I will just give you the Scripture reference concerning the Seed and leave it at that. I will let you put it together as to how it relates to the geneologies in Gen 4-5 and the sons of God in 6.

Gen 3:14-15

So the LORD God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and every beast of the field!

On your belly will you go,

and dust you will eat,

all the days of your life.

15And I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your seed and her seed.

He will crush your head,

That btw is the beginning of the redemption part of the plan moving into history, The first announcement of it.

and you will strike his heel.c”

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Inside the Atonement: What Christ Actually Did on the Cross

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

He’s a Way of life

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

Similar threads