Penal Substitution.....?

[depthdeception]

I think we have to distinguish between two different things here , ......Jehovas Holiness is not determined by His will , He IS HOLY , it is what God is , not what He chooses to be , therefore sin cannot go unpunished....... and God cannot sin!

I see no philosophically compelling reason why the last part of your statement is necessitated by the former. ALthough I agree with the first part that God's holiness is not determined by what God does or wills, I see no reason why this would require that sin be punished. You are forcing a conclusion but leaving the question completely undefined.

Yet God's Law is willed , it is an objective standard that God has placed over SINNERS , that means He himself is not under it ....... for example He may tell you "Thou shalt not kill" (meaning murder of course) and if you do you will be subject to death ........ while at the same time from the ground of perfect Holiness God may kill millions in a world flood , or may even command the Israelites to go forth and slay nations!

Holiness is the basis for Law , the Law is an objective temporary rule , God's Holiness is inherent and is therefore Eternal.

God is not bound by anything ......... how can you be bound by a Law that is set down for sinners ?

Holiness is NOT some external force that makes God do anything , it is inherent.

If it is inherent, then the only conclusion that one can reach is not that God must punish sin (as you claim in your first quote in this post, i.e., "sin cannot go unpunished"--this placing a necessity upon God to punish), but rather that God desires to punish sin. While this is logically coherent, it does create conceptual difficulties when this understanding is juxtaposed to the revelation of God in Christ that reveals that God quite contrarily desires that sinners be reconciled to God. THerefore, the only conclusion that one can reach if these two views are to be reconciled is that the will of God and Christ in the cross are actually at variance... Again, while perhaps logically coherent, it does create severe problems for one's understanding of the inter-trinitarian relationship.

Every conception of justice points to penalty .....

I completely and vehemently disagree. You are a slave to Western conceptions of justice and are entirely unable to see beyond your conditioning. I pity you.

should someone slay your loved ones , you would not be indifferent , you would be looking for answers and some sought of harmony...... you would judge the crime as an "ill desert" and you would expect the sympathy of the governing bodies to capture and penalise this criminal/s.

I hope you are never put to the test.

Christ said that we are to bless those that curse us, and to rejoice when others persecute us. I don't remember him ever saying that we should seek for punishment (i.e., your conception of "justice") to be exacted upon them.

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgivenss of sin "......... could it be any plainer ?

Which part, the words, or the interpretation?

Of course it does , you sin you feel guilt (I hope) and that guilt weighs heavily on you , you need absolving , you cannot make recompence yourself!

Heck, if the relief of a guilty conscience is what forgiveness is about, I could effect that just as well with a six-pack of Heineken, or the passage of about 40 years. I don't need someone to die to make me feel better about what I've done. Human psychology is devious enough to create a psuedo-conscience pacification.

the difference between the animal sacrifices and Christ's is that the blood of innocent animals cannot cleanse us from sin , it does not deal with a polluted conscience ..... Christ's sacrifice is far more invigorating dealing exactly with the guilt and conscience of man .

How does "blood" (which is physical and tangible) make a difference in that which is non-physical and intangible? And why does Christ have to be punished? Could he not simply have slit his own wrists, if it is the physical blood that does the saving?

yes we need to be declared righteous , that is what Justication by faith is all about ..... you cannot stand before God in your own righteousness , you would not last!

I'm not that interested in standing before God. As the hope of salvation is to be united to the life of God, I hope that my salvation is a little bit more than a positional change, or a convincing of God that I am righteous. As the Scriptures seem to indicate, the problem of sin is a little bit more than how God psychologically perceives me; rather, it is an ontological problem, stretching down to the very depths of human being.

Not at all , it is revealed as the height of Love ...... would that you could see it!

So the sadism of God's desire to brutally punish Jesus is the "height of love?" No, I can definitely do without the neurotic understanding of love...I have a hard time understanding how I am to emulate that, and I doubt my family would appreciate it if I tried...

it is perfectly adequate , the inadequacy is in the none penal view , for God could have saved humanity without the cross according to the none penal view !

No, not at all. This is the continual mischaracterization that you make of that which you obviously do not understand.

 

[nobdysfool]

[/color][/size][/font]I see no philosophically compelling reason why the last part of your statement is necessitated by the former. ALthough I agree with the first part that God's holiness is not determined by what God does or wills, I see no reason why this would require that sin be punished. You are forcing a conclusion but leaving the question completely undefined.



If it is inherent, then the only conclusion that one can reach is not that God must punish sin (as you claim in your first quote in this post, i.e., "sin cannot go unpunished"--this placing a necessity upon God to punish), but rather that God desires to punish sin. While this is logically coherent, it does create conceptual difficulties when this understanding is juxtaposed to the revelation of God in Christ that reveals that God quite contrarily desires that sinners be reconciled to God. THerefore, the only conclusion that one can reach if these two views are to be reconciled is that the will of God and Christ in the cross are actually at variance... Again, while perhaps logically coherent, it does create severe problems for one's understanding of the inter-trinitarian relationship.



I completely and vehemently disagree. You are a slave to Western conceptions of justice and are entirely unable to see beyond your conditioning. I pity you.



Christ said that we are to bless those that curse us, and to rejoice when others persecute us. I don't remember him ever saying that we should seek for punishment (i.e., your conception of "justice") to be exacted upon them.



Which part, the words, or the interpretation?



Heck, if the relief of a guilty conscience is what forgiveness is about, I could effect that just as well with a six-pack of Heineken, or the passage of about 40 years. I don't need someone to die to make me feel better about what I've done. Human psychology is devious enough to create a psuedo-conscience pacification.



How does "blood" (which is physical and tangible) make a difference in that which is non-physical and intangible? And why does Christ have to be punished? Could he not simply have slit his own wrists, if it is the physical blood that does the saving?



I'm not that interested in standing before God. As the hope of salvation is to be united to the life of God, I hope that my salvation is a little bit more than a positional change, or a convincing of God that I am righteous. As the Scriptures seem to indicate, the problem of sin is a little bit more than how God psychologically perceives me; rather, it is an ontological problem, stretching down to the very depths of human being.



So the sadism of God's desire to brutally punish Jesus is the "height of love?" No, I can definitely do without the neurotic understanding of love...I have a hard time understanding how I am to emulate that, and I doubt my family would appreciate it if I tried...



No, not at all. This is the continual mischaracterization that you make of that which you obviously do not understand.

The only thing I see here that is being side-stepped is to determine if sin is nothing more than a decision, or does it have consequences that make it more than a simple decision.

I personally believe that sin, while founded on a decision, makes a fundamental change in the human , which is irreversible apart from Christ. It is that change that required Christ to act in order to reconcile man and God, and it is done on an individual level, not a universal level.

Sin is much, much more than just a simple decision.

 

[cygnusx1]

This verse does not say that God made Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles and Israel do what they did. Otherwise they would have no guilt. But what they accomplished was in the prophecies of God.

you obviously have not read the text!

Exactly! How? If you call murder immoral, and you say God commits murder,

Stop right there! who ever said God commits murder I said God kills!

then you call God immoral.

I reject that slur!

And that's what you said in your post #156.

No I didn't say God commits murder , I said God kills ........... try quoting me then you will not drift!

Paul said: before there was law there was sin in this world. See Rom 5.

Of course there was sin in the world before the Mosaic Law was given ......... have another guess!

Because you called God a murderer in post #156.

er , no I didn't .......... I said God kills !

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Deuteronomy 32:39​

​

"See now that I, even I, am he, There is no god with me. I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal. There is no one who can deliver out of my hand. (WEB)

See now that I, even I, am he, And there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; And there is none that can deliver out of my hand. (ASV)

See now, I myself am he; there is no other god but me: giver of death and life, wounding and making well: and no one has power to make you free from my hand. (BBE)

See now that I, I am HE, And there is no god with me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal, And there is none that delivereth out of my hand, (DBY)

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. (KJV)

See now that I, even I am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. (WBS)

See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me; I kill, and I make alive; I have wounded, and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand. (JPS)

See ye, now, that I -- I 'am' He, And there is no god with Me: I put to death, and I keep alive; I have smitten, and I heal; And there is not from My hand a deliverer, (YLT)
[/FONT]

 

[holdon]

Stop right there! who ever said God commits murder I said God kills!





I reject that slur!




No I didn't say God commits murder , I said God kills ........... try quoting me then you will not drift!

Here is what you said:

....... for example He may tell you "Thou shalt not kill" (meaning murder of course) and if you do you will be subject to death ........ while at the same time from the ground of perfect Holiness God may kill millions in a world flood , or may even command the Israelites to go forth and slay nations!

So, it is evident that you equated kiling with murder, otherwise the comparison "while at the same time" doesn't make sense. Now, if you want to retract that statement that's fine.

 

[depthdeception]

The only thing I see here that is being side-stepped is to determine if sin is nothing more than a decision, or does it have consequences that make it more than a simple decision.

I completely agree that sin is more than smply a "decision." As I have consistently maintained, sinfulness is expressed through a relational dysfunction between humanity and God. This gets to the very core of who and what humanity is.

I personally believe that sin, while founded on a decision, makes a fundamental change in the human , which is irreversible apart from Christ.

Your language seems to describe sin as something that has an ontological existence apart from the person. This view I reject. Sin does not make a fundamental change in a person--it is the fundamental change in a person, from being reconciled with God, to being at emnity with God.

It is that change that required Christ to act in order to reconcile man and God, and it is done on an individual level, not a universal level.

I agree, but I also assert that it is done on an universal level. Christ's atonement on the cross is just as much about the defeat of violence, sinfulness and evil in the cosmos as it is about individual reconciliation and forgiveness.

Sin is much, much more than just a simple decision.

I do not disagree.

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is what you said: So, it is evident that you equated kiling with murder, otherwise the comparison "while at the same time" doesn't make sense. Now, if you want to retract that statement that's fine.

I made it clear that fallen man is the one under The Law , the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment simply means do no murder , it does not mean become vegetarians , or , don't fight in wars , or don't have a death penalty ..etc......

The comparison cannot be that God killing humans makes Him a "murderer" , He is not under Law , so it cannot apply to Him.

There is a definite division between what we are called to do and what God can and will do.

We are commanded by The Lord not to take personal revenge because that is God's perogative.

Vengeance is reserved for God , our personal attempts at justice are to be set aside to make room for God's vengeance ............ this is to train us in patience and Godliness.

We are to do our enemies good and in one real sense we will be pouring hot coals on their head.

How many times did Paul do his enemies good ........... yet when the wrath , vengeance , the anger of God is revealed against two perverters of the Gospel , Paul says "at last"!!

1Thess.2.16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!

Some argue foolishly that God does not show penalty to sinners , they cannot recognise The Lord "getting even " with sinners , or God paying reprobates back likewise ....... again the testimony of scripture is against them .....

2 Thess 1:5This is an obvious sign of the righteous judgment of God, to the end that you may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you also suffer. 6. Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you, 7. and to give relief to you that are afflicted with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 8. giving vengeance to those who don't know God, and to those who don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, 9. who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10. when he comes to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired among all those who have believed (because our testimony to you was believed) in that day. WEB


Clearly there are things that God does and will do that we should not do!

then some will point to Jesus in His earthly ministry and attempt to say God doesn't get angry , He may turn a few tables over , chase a few sinners around but He kills none!

Just have another look at the return of Christ!

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10

2 Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2 Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2 Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2 Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

the testimony of God's word is clear !









​

 

[Ben johnson]

I do not accept the idea that God is bound by some external rule of justice. I God's actions are the definition of justice. Whatever He chooses to do is just, and we have no basis for questioning it. If He chooses to grant salvation to those who eat turnips, it is just to do so. If He chooses to forgive those who repent, it is just to do so.

He has declared in Scripture that He is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES.

I do not accept the idea that God must punish someone to be able to forgive sin. I believe in a sovereign God who is able to do as He pleases. If it pleases Him to forgive, He forgives. He need not require punishment from the sinner or anyone else if He so pleases.

The sin must go somewhere. The wages of sin are death --- only by dying could Jesus truly "cancel the certificate of death". Blood was always the only path of forgiveness --- in the OT, they were looking forward to the coming Savior; and animals were substitutinary for Christ's blood. NOW, we are looking BACK to the came Messiah --- and His blood is sufficient.

I do not accept the problem of sin as a problem of guilt. PSA holds that once a person is 'justified', they are (or will inevitably be) saved. This reduces salvation to a forensic declaration. It does not require an ontological change in the sinner.

Indeed; we are "to be perfect, even as He is perfect".

I do not accept righteousness as matter of perception. PSA involves a person being declared righteous. For one reason or another (depending on the version of PSA), God declares the sinner to be righteous. However, the sinner is never actually made righteous.

Fully true; indeed, as 2Cor5:21 says: "God made Him who knew no sin, to BE sin on our behalf, so that through Him we may become the righteousness of God."

I accept the Christus Victor/Recapitulation model of Atonement. I believe that in the Incarnation, Christ reunited creation with God. He placed man back on the path toward perfect union with God.

"Fellowship", specifically "indwelt fellowship" with God, is the essence of salvation. See Jn17:3.

Secondarily, I accept the Ransom and Moral Example models of Atonement. That is, by Christ's submission to death at the hands of the unrighteous, He showed us how to be righteous. In His Resurrection, we see that He is vindicated as righteous before God. In this, He has shown us how to be at one with God.

With respect, this seems to deny the "indwelling person of Christ". We are not merely shown "how to be righteous" --- HE is our righteousness IN and THROUGH us.

I believe that by the grace of God through faith in Christ we are made righteous. We are not declared righteous. We are not 'imputed' with another's righteousness. We are made righteous.

Right. And this because of "HIM IN us".

I do accept the dichotomy between works of Faith and works of Law.

Jame's dissertation (ch2), mirrors Jesus' words (Matt7) perfectly; a saved HEART will PRODUCE good works. Period.

I believe that God freely forgives sin without a need for punishment or satisifaction of justice.

How does this "mesh" with 1Jn2:2? "He is the PROPITIATION (appeasement) for sins; and not just OURS but also the whole world."

The only requirements are that we repent of our sins and forgive (freely forgive) those who sin against us.

True forgiveness also calls them to change. Jesus DID "sup" with prostitutes and tax-gatherers --- but He did not FELLOWSHIP with them. And His treatment, was as a physician to the SICK --- healing was required.

"Neither do I condemn you; go your way, but do this no more."

Scripture says God is just, not that whatever God does we are to accept as just. Words have meanings and the inspired writers of scripture used them to convey those meanings to us. God has attributes and God's actions are consistent with His attributes. Our understanding of God should be that His actions are just because He is just, not that whatever He does becomes just.

Yes.

Once a person is spiritually placed in Christ, and undergoes the circumcision of Christ, they are justified to life united with God. This sovereign act of God is termed positional sanctification. But beyond this forensic declaration of righteousness, salvation continues, during the remainder of our physical life, where as a new creature in Christ we are conformed to the image of Christ, and we carry out our ministry of reconciliation. If we lead ineffective lives for Christ, we lose our salvation in that we lose some of the available benefits of salvation,

Van, there is no "partly saved". We cannot be "ineffective saved". Salvation is indwelt-fellowship with Christ --- union between creature (you and I), and Creator (Jesus). It is either "all", or "nuthin'".

Justification --- sanctification --- regeneration --- are all through BELIEF. The man in Heb10:29, who REJECTED his sanctification by Jesus' blood, is held out as an example for us to AVOID.

When we are placed in Christ we are made righteous. Our body of flesh (sin) is removed and we arise in Christ a new creation.

And yet we still SIN. Thus is proven that "righteousness", indeed "Him IN us", is fully RESISTIBLE.

Salvation is therefore a continual WALK. Guarding our hearts against deception, fully responsible for our part in the fellowship. It is as Paul says in Rm1:17, "from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith".

I think the assertion here is that since Jesus was not "in Adam" and His flesh was not corrupted and predisposed to sin, for He knew no sin, we too are not corrupted because we are identical in our human nature to Jesus. I disagree. When scripture says the many were made sinners, I believe the many refers to everyone but Jesus.

Here is the essence of salvation: "CHRIST IN YOU". We are righteous, BECAUSE of Him in us. Thus Paul's warning in 2Cor13:5, "TEST yourselves to see of you are IN CHRIST --- He is IN you, unless you FAIL THE TEST!"

"Fail", is "adokimos" --- the exact same word as Paul uses in 1Cor9:27, worrying about his OWN persistence in salvation.

 

[depthdeception]

The sin must go somewhere.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sin is not something that has an ontological existence unto itself apart from the sinner. Rather, sinfulness is the manifestation of one's dysfunctional relatedness to God, humanity and oneself. Would this perspective of sin change your understanding of what Philip is saying?

 

[Ben johnson]

If by 'hell' you refer to the final abode of wicked and by 'place' you still mean ''a physical location', then the answer is no. To understand the Orthodox view on the afterlife, both heaven and hell, you should read Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

There are four words for Hell. Sheol, is the grave. Hades, is like a "waiting area". Gehenna is fully a lake of fire. Tartara is the pit.

That there IS a "lake of fire", is made clear in passages such as Rev20:14-15. ("Gehenna" was a descriptive based on what they could understand --- the valley that continually burned and smouldered...)

God removes our sins because He chooses to. Note also that while He does forgive our sins and turn away His anger, at the same time He disciplines us that we may learn the ways of righteousnes.

Actually, it's because we repent.

Hebrews 9:22
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This verse almost certainly refers back to the Last Supper:

Nope --- see my previous post. From "blood-animal-sacrifices", to "blood-Christ-sacrifice".

The blood of the Last Supper was symbolic of Jesus' shed blood. The broken bread was symbolic of His broken body.

Hebrews 9:26, "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

Seems crystal.

Yes.

 

[Edial]

Ben. When you get like this, you can move mountains.

Ed

 

[jckstraw72]

Blood was always the only path of forgiveness --- in the OT, they were looking forward to the coming Savior; and animals were substitutinary for Christ's blood. NOW, we are looking BACK to the came Messiah --- and His blood is sufficient.

John the Baptist baptized for the forgiveness of sins--no blood. Isaiah sins were purged by a coal from the Heavenly altar--no blood.

 

[cygnusx1]

John the Baptist baptized for the forgiveness of sins--no blood. Isaiah sins were purged by a coal from the Heavenly altar--no blood.

the precious blood of Jesus does more than cleanse , it is also "payement" and a covering .

 

[jckstraw72]

the precious blood of Jesus does more than cleanse , it is also "payement" and a covering .

im not sure what you mean by a covering. Christ's blood cleanses of sin, it doesnt just hide them.

 

[Philip]

the precious blood of Jesus does more than cleanse , it is also "payement" and a covering .

If we are cleansed of our sins, what is left to be payed or covered?

 

[Ben johnson]

im not sure what you mean by a covering. Christ's blood cleanses of sin, it doesnt just hide them.

"Covered", means "forgiven". You know, like in James5:19-20, where those who WANDER AWAY from salvation, and if another leads them BACK their souls are saved from death and many sins are COVERED?

 

[JJB]

The animal blood in the OT was a covering, like a Passover, or a mark.

The Blood of our Lord Jesus took away the sins of those who looked forward to the cross in the OT and demonstrated their faith through the animal sacrifices, and those of us who have been redeemed during the new era.

That's my oversimplified understanding of the OT sacrifices.

 

[heymikey80]

You assume wrongly. I have no idea what you are getting at with the concept of betrayal, nor how you imagine that this is related to what I have been saying.

You said, ' But your language still betrays the belief that "justice" is something external to God to which God's nature aligns itself. '

There's no betrayal. Why did you declare a betrayal?

Okay, so what.

As God doesn't do things to make Him feel good, your point that ethics is something outside God fails to carry. God doesn't have to enjoy what His internal justice demands. So that doesn't make His internal sense of justice a standard external to Him.

But as I showed in the previous argument, it is not sufficient. For example, consider this true life scenario:

In Japan, a young is driving a cart recklessly, and accidentally runs over another man, killing him. At his trial, the young man is charged with homicide, but clearly represents that he is remorseful for what has happened. Seeing his repentance and remorse, the judge commutes the "penalty" of the crime (jailtime) and allows the young man to render service the dead man's family (almost in a penance-like manner), the point of the commuation being the restoration of the young man back into the community.

You see, there is still perhaps a penalty for the young man's action (he is still rendering service to the dead man's family). However, his "penalty" is "penal" in the sense that he has to be "punished" in some proportion to the crime he committed. In Western systems of "justice," justice is said to be blind and is supposed to render penalty for actions regardless of the circumstances, motivations, etc. However, in a non-penally oriented system of justice, these issues are taken into consideration and the telos of restoration and rehabilitation are always in the background of the dissemination of "penalty."

Well, that's just mistaken. Have you ever noticed that no one can be convicted of a crime without opportunity of circumstances and motive??? This argument fails the basic test of fact. And if you meant mitigating circumstances of environment, those circumstances are accounted in determining the punishment for a violation. The fact of violation -- it's still a fact, isn't it?

Western justice does not operate as this explanation asserts it does. So you may safely ignore this as a view of western justice.

Western justice operates on declared methods of determining violation, guilt, crime. It doesn't ignore motive or circumstances. It forces those determinations to be predeterminations, so people can't be found criminal ex-post-facto ("after the fact" guilt).

So, there is a profound difference in the contexts in which "penalty" is spoken of, and this reality must be always taken into consideration. Therefore, the mere presence of "penalty" does not forward or establish your argument by any stretch of the imagination.

Um, aren't we talking about the presence of a penalty? It certainly does forward and establish my argument.

No amount of language can represent reality en toto. So no amount of theology -- yours or mine -- can. But language was never meant to do so. The question remains whether the language used conforms with that reality. Penal substitution requires two things, a penalty, and a substitution.

Penalty exists.

Now, does substitution exist?

No one has been advocating such a view of atonement, so you are now the one who is erecting strawmen.

You can either deny the position represented by the language or accept it. Add all you want, but the validity of the statement is not affected.

I don't know of any system in which a judge makes anyone the judge's son...that is the purpose of a judge, to legally declare the adoption of son's by other men...

Yep. So penal substitution is not all there is. Penal substitution exists, however. Which was to be proved.

A change of status hardly explains how union occurs...

Once again the validity of the statement is not affected by what more you wish to say about it. How do you have union without a change of status?

 

[heymikey80]

If we are cleansed of our sins, what is left to be payed or covered?

The cleansing is a sanctification process which works out in our spirit, soul, lives, and history. That process is covered and paid -- as well as our lives and history before receiving Christ and really, everything and anything else that gets between us and God.

The idea that you're perfect during the cleansing process is false. But you're covered, you're paid for. So the cleansing will take place, and you will reach the end of that redemption process -- full salvation and the glorification of your bodies at the return of Christ Jesus.

 

[cygnusx1]

im not sure what you mean by a covering. Christ's blood cleanses of sin, it doesnt just hide them.

The cleansing is for our benefit we are the guilty party , but the Hiding of our sin under Christ's Blood (Atonement in Hebrew means 'covering' ..... in Greek it means reconciliation) is for God's benefit!

"Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?" (Habakkuk 1:13).

Few are aware of the twofold nature of the Atonement ........ most can only see that man needs to be reconciled to God .......... but first God needs to be reconciled to man , it is on this basis (that through Christ God is reconciled to man ) that the call of "be ye reconciled to God " is proclaimed!!

“All things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation.”

• 2 Corinthians 5:18​

“To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

• 2 Corinthians 5:19​

So much is this denied that some even announce that propitiation was made unto us , the sinner!! ​

for a fuller explanation go here:​

http://www.alfredplacechurch.org.uk/sermons/2cor26.htm​

http://graciouscall.org/books-owen-death-bk3_6.shtml​

The apostle Paul, writing to the church at Corinth said, "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation" (" Corinthians 5:18,19). In these verses Paul is speaking of "the ministry" and drawing attention to the tremendous responsibility of the minister. He emphasizes that God hath given or hath committed to us the word of reconciliation! This at once infers that it is of great importance that the minister must have a clear, Biblical grasp of the subject.
This matter pertains to a thrice holy God and rebel sinners, and the reconciling of the two. It is a complex matter, a mighty subject which is committed to us, says the apostle; it is so involved, so intricate that if a man is not thoroughly grounded in sound doctrine or is muddled in his theology, then God is greatly dishonoured by his ministry and men led astray.
How then is this subject of reconciliation to be understood in a Biblical sense? The word 'reconcile' means 'to bring together those who are alienated', 'to reunite those at variance', 'to restore to concord'. A.W. Pink in his book on reconciliation makes a very important point; "Reconciliation is objective, it terminates upon the object, not the subject. It is not the reconciliation itself which is of such significance, but the persons reconciled". The persons under consideration of course are the eternal God and sinners of the human race. Writing to the Colossian Christians Paul said, "You, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" (Colossians 1:21).
As we approach this subject of a holy God and guilty sinners being reconciled, it must be stated at the outset that the whole matter is to be kept within the framework of the Divine Law. There must never lurk in our minds the thought that God exercises leniency towards certain people upon whom He lavishes special favours. God is immutable, eternally so. No change is ever seen in His will, His nature or His actions.
When men who have been at variance are reconciled, there is an inward change, ill feeling is forgotten, goodwill is proffered and a kindly disposition is established. Never must spiritual reconciliation be reduced to this level. The eternal God possesses nothing which corresponds to human passions. He does not suddenly change from an angry disposition to friendly affection, indeed not; reconciliation between a holy God and sinful man could only be brought about by all His righteous claims against the sinner being met, therefore it must be viewed as forensic or legal. God never acts outside of His Law.
Reconciliation presupposes alienation, discord and hostility. There is no need for reconciliation where there is harmony and peace. It also implies that before the discord there was harmony. Peace existed before it was broken by strife and enmity. There was a time when God and man were in perfect accord. The Creator expressed more favour to man than to any other created being. Man was made in God's image (cf Genesis 1:26). He was God's viceroy on earth, entrusted with the care, the charge and the dominion of all created things on this planet. Adam was fitted to live in perpetual communion with his Maker, having the capacity of knowing God, and loving and enjoying Him to the full. He was so constituted ass to be able to glorify god actively, whilst all other aspects of creation were capable of manifesting God's glory only in a passive way. In his primal state Adam was sinless, he was upright ( cf Ecclesiastes 7:29), he was in perfect and happy concord with his maker. However he was mutable, capable of change and of falling; how quickly did it happen! God placed upon him one prohibition, one test of allegiance; to fail in this single test of loyalty and obedience would mean that Adam would "surely die" (Genesis 2:17). Adam heeded not the command of God, he disobeyed, he apostatised and by so doing, as federal head of the race and the legal representative, he dragged all his posterity down with him. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
By Adam's fall all spiritual privileges were forfeited. Man lost the image of God; the favour of God and the fellowship of God, for at that point God drove man out. Acting in the Attributes of His holiness and wrath, God went into action according to His holy Law. "He drove out the man" (Genesis 3:24) and in driving out Adam, He drove out all His seed. It was even more than this, for a flaming sword, which turned every way, barred the return of man. There was no returning to God even if man chose to, as long as that sword was drawn. As stated earlier in this chapter, this is a highly legal matter; it pertains to law and to justice.
Mankind is now "alienated from the life of God" (Ephesians 4:18), "Enemies in your mind by wicked works" (Colossians 1:21), "Children of wrath"(Ephesians 2:3). Sin placed God and man apart so that the harmony that did exit between them was completely destroyed; yea, not only was the harmony destroyed but wrath was incurred, for Almighty God is the offended party. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Romans 1:18).
It must be clearly understood that God is as much alienated from the sinner as the sinner is from God. That God is antagonistic to the sinner is as clear as the Holy Scripture as is the enmity of the sinner to God. "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity" (Psalm 5:5), "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11), "They rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy" (Isaiah 63:10). It is when men come to fully realize these solemn facts that they will begin to appreciate the need of reconciliation. A breach has been caused through sin which must be healed. Righteous wrath has been incurred, the holy anger of God must be appeased; peace and concord must be restored.
Because the alienation is mutual, God's anger is upon the sinner and the sinner is at enmity with God, so must the reconciliation be mutual. Sin had placed both God and man at judicial variance. We are the offending party, God the offended. Before there could be any reconciliation, the wrath of God has to be placated. There is much teaching today which leaves one with the impression that it is man who has to be reconciled to God; this is true but it is only part of the truth. There can be no reconciliation on either side until Divine justice is satisfied. A Holy God will never withdraw the flaming sword and be reconciled to the sinner unless His claims are met in full; so the Godward aspect of reconciliation comes first - it must.
The Old Testament sacrifices were specifically designed to set forth that God should be propitiated and His wrath diverted from man, not the enmity of man diverted from God.
When Israel sinned so grievously in making the molten calf, Jehovah said unto Moses, "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them" (Exodus 32:10). In that situation, Moses stepped in as a mediator interposing between a righteous God and a sinning people, and by so doing God's wrath was turned from them.
At the rebellion of the sons of Korah, God said, "Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment" (Numbers 16:45). Again Moses stepped in, saying to Aaron, "Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them; for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun" (Numbers 16:46). This Aaron did, "and he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed" (Numbers 16:48). These are two instances taken from the Old Testament to illustrate how the wrath of God was placated. The effect of such appeasement by mediation and sacrifice is expressly termed "Reconciliation" (cf Leviticus 16:20, 2 Chronicles 29:24). Sacrifices were made, not to divert man's enmity from God, but primarily to divert God's enmity from man.
Only by God's Law being vindicated, its holy demands met and in consequence His holy wrath appeased, can the sword of Divine justice be withdrawn and He extend reconciling grace to the sinner.

http://www.biblebaptistchurch-malta.org/page21.htm

​

 

[Philip]

The cleansing is for our benefit we are the guilty party , but the Hiding of our sin under Christ's Blood (Atonement in Hebrew means 'covering' ..... in Greek it means reconciliation) is for God's benefit!

Two questions:
1. If we have been cleansed of sins, if they have been washed away, why do they still need to be hidden?
2. What do you mean 'for God's benefit'? Is God in some way lacking that He requires something?

"Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?" (Habakkuk 1:13).

Even if I agreed with your interpretation of this verse, it does not prove your point. If we have been cleansed of sins, what more is needed? If our sins have been truly washed away, then there is not iniquity for God to look at.

Few are aware of the twofold nature of the Atonement ........ most can only see that man needs to be reconciled to God .......... but first God needs to be reconciled to man , it is on this basis (that through Christ God is reconciled to man ) that the call of "be ye reconciled to God " is proclaimed!!

Couple more questions:
3. How is God reconciled to man? You say that it is through Christ, but how does it occur?

4. What is your Scriptural basis for claiming that God must be reconciled to man?

“All things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation.”

• 2 Corinthians 5:18​

“To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

• 2 Corinthians 5:19​

​

I see here that man is reconciled to God. Where do the Scriptures say that God must be reconciled to man?​