Propitiation

[fhansen]

I think it's because righteousness is not merely an absence of sin, but the presence of the good instead. It's clear from those words I quoted from Philippians 3 that the apostle Paul realised he needed Christ's perfect righteousness. He didn't say, "God has forgiven all my sins so I don't need Christ's righteousness, did he?

Yes, and this is an important concept. Righteousness is not only declared of or imputed to man at justification but Christ's righteousness is actually given to us. From there we're expected to act upon it, to live it, to grow it in, even.

 

[fhansen]

I suppose I could hit my head.

Treat yourself better than that. Try self-flagellation maybe

 

[o_mlly]

All means either all of something without exception, or all types of a thing.

So let’s say I have five kids playing in the back yard with a bunch of neighbor kids. At dinner, I yell “you all need to come in for dinner”. Obviously I’m only referring to my kids.

Yes, obviously. The "you" that precedes "all" specifies not all children but only your children. We don't see a particular delimiting "you" in the text under examination.

But let’s say I want to be generous and give everyone a treat. I yell “hey, you all come get an ice cream cone”. That is still “all”, but the context changes what is meant.

Yes, context can change meaning.

He [Paul] starts off by giving a list of different types of people. So the context would be that God wants all types of people to be saved.

Yes, "all types"; "... on behalf of all men", not only but especially "kings and all who are in authority".

If your view is correct, then Jesus is also the mediator between God and all men, and we know that’s not the case.

I do not know that Jesus is not the mediator between God and all men. Can you biblically support that claim?

As we are from different Christian traditions, perhaps we can appeal to the Church Fathers as a commonly accepted authority. St. Augustine tells us that one must accept Scripture literally unless doing so is absurd: "... the literal sense of Scripture must be believed unless reason dictates, or necessity requires."

If, however, in the words of God or of any person performing the prophetic office something is said which taken literally is simply absurd, then undoubtedly it should be understood as being said figuratively in order to signify something more profound. That it was said, though, it is not lawful to doubt. (Lit. Mean. Gen. XI, 2(1)) … and if whatever kind, let us have no doubts at all that is where they are; the authority of scripture, surely, overrides anything that human ingenuity is capable of thinking up (Lit. Mean. Gen. II, 5(9))​

 

[Hammster]

I do not know that Jesus is not the mediator between God and all men. Can you biblically support that claim?

He isn’t. Thats the point. Your view would necessitate that He is.

 

[o_mlly]

He isn’t. Thats the point. Your view would necessitate that He is.

Yes. And, again, I ask you to Scripturally support your claim that Jesus is not the mediator between God and all men. Mat 28:19-20.

 

[zoidar]

I think it's because righteousness is not merely an absence of sin, but the presence of the good instead. It's clear from those words I quoted from Philippians 3 that the apostle Paul realised he needed Christ's perfect righteousness. He didn't say, "God has forgiven all my sins so I don't need Christ's righteousness, did he?

More important would be to show where the Bible says we need Christ's perfect righteousness to be saved, rather than finding where it says we don't need Christ's perfect righteousness.

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
— Philippians 3:8-9

It says our righteousness is not from (works of ) the Law but through faith in Christ. I don't see it mentioning anything about Christ's perfect righteousness being imputed to us.

From my view if we are forgiven all our sins through the cross we are perfectly righteous, there is nothing to add to that, not even Christ's own perfect righteousness. No one goes to hell for not living perfectly, a person goes to hell because of unforgiven sins. If all sins are forgiven there can be no sentence.

 

[zoidar]

Yes. Everything we’ve done was future at the time of the crucifixion


Yes.


Here’s the best example that I’ve heard. Let’s say that you take a class, and you are failing. The teacher says if you get a 100% on the final test, you pass the class. The day of the test comes, and you fail.

The instructor tells you that he will be gracious and not count that test against you. That’s great, but it’s not enough to pass. Why? Because you needed 100% to pass.

We need Christ’s perfect life imputed to us. That’s our righteousness.

Doesn't that make the act of the instructor to not count the test against the student meaningless? All needed to be done is to impute someone else's perfect score to the student's test and he will pass.

Would you quote one or a few verses from the Bible that says we need Christ's perfect righteousness imputed to us to be saved?

 

[Hammster]

Yes. And, again, I ask you to Scripturally support your claim that Jesus is not the mediator between God and all men. Mat 28:19-20.

Jesus is the High Priest. The high priest was the go-between God and His people. Jesus doesn’t mediate between His Father and those not given to Him by His Father.

 

[Hammster]

Doesn't that make the act of the instructor to not count the test against the student meaningless? All needed to be done is to impute someone else's perfect score to the student's test and he will pass.

Would you quote one or a few verses from the Bible that says we need Christ's perfect righteousness imputed to us to be saved?

They are in the same chapter that defines the Trinity. Just look it up.

 

[zoidar]

They are in the same chapter that defines the Trinity. Just look it up.

Ok... it's just not a good argument for it. The Trinity is backed up by the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Hammster]

Ok... it's just not a good argument for it. The Trinity is backed up by the Early Church Fathers.

That’s irrelevant. There are no verses that say there is a Trinity. We have to examine scripture and draw from it.

 

[zoidar]

That’s irrelevant. There are no verses that say there is a Trinity. We have to examine scripture and draw from it.

From Scripture alone it's not that easy to draw the Trinity.

From where do you draw the teaching of Jesus perfect righteousness imputed to us?

 

[Hammster]

From Scripture alone it's not that easy to draw the Trinity.

But we use scripture alone to prove it.

From where do you draw the teaching of Jesus perfect righteousness imputed to us?

There you go again. The same places where Jesus spells out the Trinity.

 

[o_mlly]

Jesus is the High Priest. The high priest was the go-between God and His people. Jesus doesn’t mediate between His Father and those not given to Him by His Father.

I ask again, from Scripture, what verses support this new claim that the Father gives some but not all humanity (indeed, every creature) to the Son? Mark 16:15-16.

 

[zoidar]

But we use scripture alone to prove it.

There you go again. The same places where Jesus spells out the Trinity.

Well, he does not. There are however passages that can lead us in that direction.

 

[Hammster]

I ask again, from Scripture, what verses support this new claim that the Father gives some but not all humanity (indeed, every creature) to the Son? Mark 16:15-16.

Are you wanting me to quote all the passages in the OT that talk about the high priest, and all the passages in Hebrews that show that Jesus is the greater High Priest? Seems like quite a bit of work.

 

[Hammster]

Well, he does not. There are however passages that can lead us in that direction.

That’s isn’t what you are asking for, though.

 

[zoidar]

That’s isn’t what you are asking for, though.

I am now.

 

[Hammster]

I am now.

Let’s start here.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
— Romans 5:19

 

[o_mlly]

Are you wanting me to quote all the passages in the OT that talk about the high priest, and all the passages in Hebrews that show that Jesus is the greater High Priest?

No, as asked (3rd time), kindly cite the "verses [that] support this new claim that the Father gives some but not all humanity (indeed, every creature) to the Son? Mark 16:15-16.