Propitiation

[Hammster]

The scripture answers your response, Christ paid the price for sins against the Torah, not for blatant sin against Himself.
The good news is that all that is required is following Christ instead of the Torah.
Those who despised Moses law died on the account of two or three witnesses.
Of how much worse punishment shall he be counted worthy who despises Jesus' simple teachings?
That is what the Bible is saying to us, God's wrath for disobedience against the Torah is satisfied,
in the end, as Paul said, Jesus comes to do vengeance, wrath, in flaming fire, against those who
"obey not the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Paul is referring to the message from Jesus not his own message. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, as I quoted for you already.

You still haven’t answered the question, but I won’t push it any further.

 

[zoidar]

We are regenerated before we have faith. We are justified afterwards. It’s with our new heart, given after our new birth, that we exercise faith.

Hm, but the question was if we are saved before or after faith.

If you look closely, he doesn’t say he was a child of wrath, but that his nature was the same as those who were children of wrath.

Are you saying the reprobate with the same nature as Paul before he had faith were children of wrath, but not Paul? Is that your reading? Sorry for asking, I just want to be sure I debate the correct viewpoint.

Because Christ isn’t bearing the penalty for all of your sin. You are bearing some of it.

There is the view Jesus bore all sins except unbelief. The problem is like you point out, then Jesus didn't bear all sins.

Then there is the view Jesus bore all sins of the elect. Here the problem is since he also bore unbelief, it makes faith unnecessary since it doesn't change anything from the standpoint of salvation, since by the atonement all sins have already been punished, taken away.

The third option is to set aside the classic view of Penal Subsitution.

Not only are they not terms used in scripture, you can’t find the idea. You have to create it in order to make your view plausible.

I don't think there is somewhere in Scripture where it says Jesus didn't bear some sins of the believer. The problem is there is no detailed description on the specifics how the atonement works, in Scripture. There are however good philosophical arguments. Even if it turns out Allen's view is wrong, no one can say God is unjust in this theory.

There are also things in Reformed teaching that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Like the idea God decreed every minuscule detail in the universe. Of course I believe Reformed theology lacks support for the TULIP as a whole, but there are texts that could be interpreted to support TULIP.

 

[bling]

Hm, but the question was if we are saved before or after faith.

Are you saying the reprobate with the same nature as Paul before he had faith were children of wrath, but not Paul? Is that your reading? Sorry for asking, I just want to be sure I debate the correct viewpoint.

There is the view Jesus bore all sins except unbelief. The problem is like you point out, then Jesus didn't bear all sins.

Then there is the view Jesus bore all sins of the elect. Here the problem is since he also bore unbelief, it makes faith unnecessary since it doesn't change anything from the standpoint of salvation, since by the atonement all sins have already been punished, taken away.

The third option is to set aside the classic view of Penal Subsitution.


I don't think there is somewhere in Scripture where it says Jesus didn't bear some sins of the believer. The problem is there is no detailed description on the specifics how the atonement works, in Scripture. There are however good philosophical arguments. Even if it turns out Allen's view is wrong, no one can say God is unjust in this theory.

There are also things in Reformed teaching that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Like the idea God decreed every minuscule detail in the universe. Of course I believe Reformed theology lacks support for the TULIP as a whole, but there are texts that could be interpreted to support TULIP.

Hi Zoidar,

I want to jump in here because I feel you could use an alternative explanation, like you hinted at:

“The third option is to set aside the classic view of Penal Substitution.”

This whole idea of Jesus “paying God for our sins”, is just not there. Since God forgave our sins 100% there is nothing left to “pay”, for our sins. Do not make God’s Love (forgiveness) so weak it needs some payment.

Also to suggest Christ’s torture, humiliation and cruel murder would be satisfying to God, makes God out to be blood thirsty. God knows Christ’s Love for us and does not need to see a demonstration.

There is an unbelievable huge ransom payment being made, but that payment is made to the undeserving criminal kidnapper of a child of God; while I was an unbelieving sinner I was holding back a child of God from the kingdom (I was a kidnapper), but I humbly accepted by faith, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified (the ransom payment) causing me to release that child.

As far as my “doing something” worthy, honorable, holy, righteous or deserving of something, it is not there, since I for purely selfish reasons (which means they are sinful reasons) want an undeserving better life for myself and thus are willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from my enemy (God is still my enemy while I am surrendering to Him). The accepting of the ransom payment does not make me “worthy” of anything, just like a kidnapper taking a ransom payment is not worthy of anything.

I am not in agreement with Dr. David Allen, Jesus does not “pay any debt”, Jesus (really God) is providing a huge ransom payment to the kidnappers of His children (sinners), but some will repeatedly refuse that ransom payment to their death and thus never release the child for the Kingdom. The ransom payment is big enough for everyone, but not every criminal kidnapper will accept it.

This is a huge topic, but I am happy to address it with you.

 

[Hammster]

Hm, but the question was if we are saved before or after faith.

And I answered. “Saved” has many facets to it. Election, predestination, regeneration, justification, etc. It’s not always a catch-all phrase.

Are you saying the reprobate with the same nature as Paul before he had faith were children of wrath, but not Paul? Is that your reading? Sorry for asking, I just want to be sure I debate the correct viewpoint.

Yes. Even in your view that has to be correct unless you hold to Open Theism. Even in your view God knew who would be saved by Christ’s sacrifice.

There is the view Jesus bore all sins except unbelief. The problem is like you point out, then Jesus didn't bear all sins.

That can’t be true because we are all unbelievers at some point.

Then there is the view Jesus bore all sins of the elect. Here the problem is since he also bore unbelief, it makes faith unnecessary since it doesn't change anything from the standpoint of salvation, since by the atonement all sins have already been punished, taken away.

Except that we are justified by faith. That’s just one aspect of salvation, which like stated above is a reason why we must be clear on our terms.

The third option is to set aside the classic view of Penal Subsitution.


I don't think there is somewhere in Scripture where it says Jesus didn't bear some sins of the believer. The problem is there is no detailed description on the specifics how the atonement works, in Scripture. There are however good philosophical arguments. Even if it turns out Allen's view is wrong, no one can say God is unjust in this theory.

There are also things in Reformed teaching that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Like the idea God decreed every minuscule detail in the universe. Of course I believe Reformed theology lacks support for the TULIP as a whole, but there are texts that could be interpreted to support TULIP.

Okay.

 

[zoidar]

And I answered. “Saved” has many facets to it. Election, predestination, regeneration, justification, etc. It’s not always a catch-all phrase.

Salvation has many facets, but there is a moment in time when you become a child of God, and that is when you are saved. Where would you put that moment? I would put it when you receive the Holy Spirit.

Yes. Even in your view that has to be correct unless you hold to Open Theism. Even in your view God knew who would be saved by Christ’s sacrifice.

God knowing does not change that God deals with us in time. He never punish someone for what He knows the person will do, until he has actually done it (the story of David and Bathsheba as an example). Likewise God's wrath is over a person until he repents, even God knows the person will repent in the future.

I would like you to find one commentary which has your view. I checked a few and all were in line with my understanding, and none of them are written by Open Theists.

 

[Hammster]

Salvation has many facets, but there is a moment in time when you become a child of God, and that is when you are saved. Where would you put that moment? I would put it when you receive the Holy Spirit.

I put it at regeneration, ie born again/new heart.

God knowing does not change that God deals with us in time. He never punish someone for what He knows the person will do, until he has actually done it (the story of David and Bathsheba as an example). Likewise God's wrath is over a person until he repents, even God knows the person will repent in the future.

There’s no difference between what a person will do in time, and what God knows a person will do in time.

I would like you to find one commentary which has your view. I checked a few and all were in line with my understanding, and none of them are written by Open Theists.

What passages are you looking up?

 

[zoidar]

I put it at regeneration, ie born again/new heart.

I as well! Though I put repentance before regeneration, and you after, but that's a different topic.

There’s no difference between what a person will do in time, and what God knows a person will do in time.

Of course a person will do in time what God knows he will do. How is that relevant to my argument?

What passages are you looking up?

I looked up the verse in question. Where you say Paul was never a child of wrath. I haven't found a commentary agreeing with that statement. Before faith everyone was by nature a child of wrath, even Paul. Commentaries agree!

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
— Ephesians 2:3

 

[Hammster]

I as well! Though I put repentance before regeneration, and you after, but that's a different topic.

Of course a person will do in time what God knows he will do. How is that relevant to my argument?

I looked up the verse in question. Where you say Paul was never a child of wrath. I haven't found a commentary agreeing with that statement. Before faith everyone was by nature a child of wrath, even Paul. Commentaries agree!

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
— Ephesians 2:3

I think we have strayed off topic.

I’m still interested in your moral/legal guilt argument. I’m not sure if that was fully addressed. If moral guilt is what you are responsible for, how do you not see that you are part of the redemption process?

 

[zoidar]

I think we have strayed off topic.

I’m still interested in your moral/legal guilt argument. I’m not sure if that was fully addressed. If moral guilt is what you are responsible for, how do you not see that you are part of the redemption process?

All I wanted to say is it's strange if we are children of wrath and at the same time God's wrath has been appeased. I don't know how people deal with this issue. One way to understand it is to say God's wrath is appeased first when someone has repented and come to faith. Maybe I should start a thread just for this topic.

I have not thought very much about it, but if you have done someone wrong and ask this person for forgiveness and you are forgiven, would we say you are part of the forgiveness process? I guess one could say you are part of the process, like a patient is part of willing to take the medicine. But it could hardly be said the patient partly causes the effect of the medicine, or a person partly causes the effect of forgiveness or redemption.

 

[Hammster]

All I wanted to say is it's strange if we are children of wrath and at the same time God's wrath has been appeased. I don't know how people deal with this issue. One way to understand it is to say God's wrath is appeased first when someone has repented and come to faith. Maybe I should start a thread just for this topic.

I agree that it’s strange. But if your view is correct, then it wasn’t Christ’s death on the cross that appeased God’s wrath. It would be your repentance.

I have not thought very much about it, but if you have done someone wrong and ask this person for forgiveness and you are forgiven, would we say you are part of the forgiveness process? I guess one could say you are part of the process, like a patient is part of willing to take the medicine. But it could hardly be said the patient partly causes the effect of the medicine, or a person partly causes the effect of forgiveness or redemption.

The issue is that you have separated legal from moral guilt, as if you can have one without the other. And I see no support for that. If I’m not legally guilty for something, how can I be morally guilty?

 

[zoidar]

I agree that it’s strange. But if your view is correct, then it wasn’t Christ’s death on the cross that appeased God’s wrath. It would be your repentance.

It's the idea God is appeased because there is longer anything to be wrathful over, since you are righteous. The reason you are righteous is not only because of repentance, but because Christ sacrifice has made you righteous through repentance. It's still the sacrifice that makes you righteous, repentance activates the wash, so to speak. Without the atonement repentance would do nothing to the wrath of God, since it would not make you righteous.

The issue is that you have separated legal from moral guilt, as if you can have one without the other. And I see no support for that. If I’m not legally guilty for something, how can I be morally guilty?

Wouldn't you say atonement has to be received? Then don't you also separate the atonement (the legal aspect, the payment) from what we have to do (the moral aspect, receiving the payment)?

 

[Hammster]

It's the idea God is appeased because there is longer anything to be wrathful over, since you are righteous. The reason you are righteous is not only because of repentance, but because Christ sacrifice has made you righteous through repentance. It's still the sacrifice that makes you righteous, repentance activates the wash, so to speak. Without the atonement repentance would do nothing to the wrath of God, since it would not make you righteous.

You still are left with something you do that appeases God’s wrath. That means there is something good in you that God uses for your salvation. I don’t think that’s the case.

Wouldn't you say atonement has to be received? Then don't you also separate the atonement (the legal aspect, the payment) from what we have to do (the moral aspect, receiving the payment)?

I don’t see atonement as being received, at least not in an active sense. It’s an act of grace bestowed upon His people. This is why the wrath must be fully satisfied on the cross.

 

[John Mullally]

You still are left with something you do that appeases God’s wrath. That means there is something good in you that God uses for your salvation. I don’t think that’s the case.

Although Christ delivered us from God's wrath towards sin (if we believe on Jesus), I don't find any discussion of Christ satisfying God's wrath in the NT.

I don’t see atonement as being received, at least not in an active sense. It’s an act of grace bestowed upon His people. This is why the wrath must be fully satisfied on the cross.

The death of Christ alone does not save a person, such as to complete a transaction. In other words, the Cross does not save without faith.

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.​

Since Jesus took upon Himself the “sin of the world,” (John 1:29), His atonement is therefore available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved?

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.​

 

[bling]

All I wanted to say is it's strange if we are children of wrath and at the same time God's wrath has been appeased. I don't know how people deal with this issue. One way to understand it is to say God's wrath is appeased first when someone has repented and come to faith. Maybe I should start a thread just for this topic.

How much wrath would a father have toward His children who have humbly accepted His forgiveness and correctly accepted His discipline?

I have not thought very much about it, but if you have done someone wrong and ask this person for forgiveness and you are forgiven, would we say you are part of the forgiveness process? I guess one could say you are part of the process, like a patient is part of willing to take the medicine. But it could hardly be said the patient partly causes the effect of the medicine, or a person partly causes the effect of forgiveness or redemption.

I am glad you see forgiveness as a process, because it is. God is forgiving everyone, but the problem is with us humbly willing to accept His forgiving us as pure undeserved charity. You might do a study of Matt. 18: 21-35, since the Master forgave, yet forgiveness did not take place.

 

[Hammster]

Although Christ delivered us from God's wrath towards sin (if we believe on Jesus), I don't find any discussion of Christ satisfying God's wrath in the NT.

See the OP.

The death of Christ alone does not save a person, such as to complete a transaction. In other words, the Cross does not save without faith.

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.​

That’s definitely an aspect of salvation. But one must be born again, first.

Since Jesus took upon Himself the “sin of the world,” (John 1:29), His atonement is therefore available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved?

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.​

Linguistically, could “world” in John 1 mean something other than every person who ever lived?

 

[John Mullally]

You still are left with something you do that appeases God’s wrath. That means there is something good in you that God uses for your salvation. I don’t think that’s the case.

Although Christ delivered us from God's wrath towards sin (if we believe on Jesus), I don't find any discussion of Christ satisfying God's wrath in the NT.

See the OP.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
— 1 John 2:1-2

It’s is commonly understood that propitiation is the atoning sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath. That’s the definition I’m going with here. Looking at this passage, we can conclude one of two things. God's wrath was satisfied for some or for all. Those who think it’s for all take “whole world” prima facia and say God loved the whole world and bore the sins of every man. Those who say it’s only for some look at the context and see the “our sins” as John’s immediate audience, and “whole world” as indicating that it’s just not his audience, but others throughout the world.

God did not create anyone to hate on. God's wrath is not an entity that must in some way be appeased. As the prophet Jonah learned, God’s wrath is conditional. Jonah observed: “I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.” (Jonah 4:2)

My argument against the former is that if God’s wrath is satisfied by His Son’s sacrifice, then He would be unjust for sending anyone to hell. It would be akin to someone paying off my house in full, yet the bank foreclosing on my house. That would not be just.

So it’s best to see “whole world” as referencing people throughout the world, as opposed to every single person in the world.

1 John 2:1-2 is referring to the "whole world". As I explained in the last half of Post 293, the atonement is available to all, but the cross does not save without faith.

 

[Hammster]

God did not create anyone to hate on. God's wrath is not an entity that must in some way be appeased. As the prophet Jonah learned, God’s wrath is conditional. Jonah observed: “I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.” (Jonah 4:2)

1 John 2:1-2 is referring to the "whole world". As I explained in the last half of Post 293, the atonement is available to all, but the cross does not save without faith.

Satisfy: to put an end to (a desire, want, need, etc.) by sufficient or ample provision

God has wrath on some people.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
— John 3:36

So obviously His wrath is satisfied (put and end to) by the cross of Christ (sufficient provision).

Satisfaction is there.

 

[zoidar]

You still are left with something you do that appeases God’s wrath. That means there is something good in you that God uses for your salvation. I don’t think that’s the case.

Yes, that is true! In this case God uses our will or faith or repentance to accomplish our salvation. I wouldn't say repentance or faith are caused by something good from ourselves, but rather from something good God caused within us. Though, I wouldn't call it regeneration, but conviction. And you are free to disagree. No problem! It's just good to raise questions and concerns and think about what you believe.

I don’t see atonement as being received, at least not in an active sense. It’s an act of grace bestowed upon His people. This is why the wrath must be fully satisfied on the cross.

Yeah, ok! I wish I could say more about legal debt and moral dept. I have to think a lot more about it. The idea is quite new to me. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

[John Mullally]

It’s is commonly understood that propitiation is the atoning sacrifice that appeases God’s wrath. That’s the definition I’m going with here. Looking at this passage, we can conclude one of two things. God's wrath was satisfied for some or for all. Those who think it’s for all take “whole world” prima facia and say God loved the whole world and bore the sins of every man. Those who say it’s only for some look at the context and see the “our sins” as John’s immediate audience, and “whole world” as indicating that it’s just not his audience, but others throughout the world.

My argument against the former is that if God’s wrath is satisfied by His Son’s sacrifice, then He would be unjust for sending anyone to hell. It would be akin to someone paying off my house in full, yet the bank foreclosing on my house. That would not be just.

Satisfy: to put an end to (a desire, want, need, etc.) by sufficient or ample provision

God has wrath on some people.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
— John 3:36

So obviously His wrath is satisfied (put and end to) by the cross of Christ (sufficient provision).

Satisfaction is there.

Thank you. You answered your own OP by quoting John 3:36 to my satisfaction. God's wrath does not abide on those "that believeth on the Son".

 

[zoidar]

How much wrath would a father have toward His children who have humbly accepted His forgiveness and correctly accepted His discipline?

I am glad you see forgiveness as a process, because it is. God is forgiving everyone, but the problem is with us humbly willing to accept His forgiving us as pure undeserved charity. You might do a study of Matt. 18: 21-35, since the Master forgave, yet forgiveness did not take place.

I don't know if I think of forgiveness as a process. If you are forgiven a sin it's forgiven. It does however not mean we are always forgiven all sins at once. There might be some confession to be made.