Divided God head

[guest1]

Well for starters I'll take Jesus own words and teaching on the Atonement.

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The New Covenant prophesied in the OT from Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 tells us that the Covenant would be the forgiveness of sin and the promise of the Holy Spirit in them, permanent dwelling. Hebrews 9:22 confirms that about the New Covenant in His blood. The communion is a celebration of the forgiveness of our sins by His body/blood that was given for us. His death was a sacrifice/ransom for our sins. It was not penal/ wrath/anger from Father to Son but the entire NT declares the opposite it was done our of and in Love that the Father sent the Son.

Each and every day I distance myself further and further away from the penal aspect of the atonement. In fact the Gospels discuss 50% of the time or more focused on the last 3 days of Jesus life and the meaning of His death and Resurrection.

And guess what there is no penal aspect found in the gospels. Jesus said he laid down His life and gave it as a ransom for sin.

hope this helps !!!

 

[David1701]

Well for starters I'll take Jesus own words and teaching on the Atonement.

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The New Covenant prophesied in the OT from Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 tells us that the Covenant would be the forgiveness of sin and the promise of the Holy Spirit in them, permanent dwelling. Hebrews 9:22 confirms that about the New Covenant in His blood. The communion is a celebration of the forgiveness of our sins by His body/blood that was given for us. His death was a sacrifice/ransom for our sins. It was not penal/ wrath/anger from Father to Son but the entire NT declares the opposite it was done our of and in Love that the Father sent the Son.

Each and every day I distance myself further and further away from the penal aspect of the atonement. In fact the Gospels discuss 50% of the time or more focused on the last 3 days of Jesus life and the meaning of His death and Resurrection.

And guess what there is no penal aspect found in the gospels. Jesus said he laid down His life and gave it as a ransom for sin.

hope this helps !!!

Christ redeemed us from the CURSE OF THE LAW, becoming a CURSE FOR US (substitution). The further anyone gets from this, the further he departs from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Gal. 3:11-13 (WEB)
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, “The righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not of faith, but, “The man who does them will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,”

This is about fulfilling the LAW.

Deut. 21:22,23 (WEB)
22 If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree;
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you don’t defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

 

[guest1]

Christ redeemed us from the CURSE OF THE LAW, becoming a CURSE FOR US (substitution). The further anyone gets from this, the further he departs from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Gal. 3:11-13 (WEB)
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, “The righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not of faith, but, “The man who does them will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,”

This is about fulfilling the LAW.

Deut. 21:22,23 (WEB)
22 If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree;
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you don’t defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

Redemption is not wrath that is a giant leap. Ransom is not wrath either. He is our substitute.

I can tell everyone here this if you did not study PSA you would not believe it if it was presented to you. There are only 2 passages in the OT that allude to it and none in the N.T. that speak of penal with Isaiah 53 quoted 8 times in the N.T.

The N.T. writers do not teach penal and neither did Jesus. Jesus taught ransom, substitution and forgiveness of sin.

And you can allude that I'm not saved, a brother, departing from the faith etc.......

The problem with that is there is 100 times more evidence in the N.T. that support my view and especially in light of the Trinity and innate attributes of God.

But I will not say you are departing from the faith because you believe PSA- its not essential no matter how hard you try and make it otherwise no one was saved before the reformation when the doctrine was developed.

That would be like saying no one was saved prior to the 4th century when the Trinity doctrine was officially developed like the PSA during the Reformation.

hope this helps !!!

 

[David1701]

Redemption is not wrath that is a giant leap. Ransom is not wrath either. He is our substitute.

I can tell everyone here this if you did not study PSA you would not believe it if it was presented to you. There are only 2 passages in the OT that allude to it and none in the N.T. that speak of penal with Isaiah 53 quoted 8 times in the N.T.

The N.T. writers do not teach penal and neither did Jesus. Jesus taught ransom, substitution and forgiveness of sin.

And you can allude that I'm not saved, a brother, departing from the faith etc.......

The problem with that is there is 100 times more evidence in the N.T. that support my view and especially in light of the Trinity and innate attributes of God.

But I will not say you are departing from the faith because you believe PSA- its not essential no matter how hard you try and make it otherwise no one was saved before the reformation when the doctrine was developed.

That would be like saying no one was saved prior to the 4th century when the Trinity doctrine was officially developed like the PSA during the Reformation.

hope this helps !!!

You have not even touched on the verses that I quoted. Why is that, I wonder?

Gal. 3:11-13 (WEB)
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, “The righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not of faith, but, “The man who does them will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,”

This is about fulfilling the LAW.

Deut. 21:22,23 (WEB)
22 If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree;
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you don’t defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

Do you believe these verses or not?

 

[guest1]

And BTW Salvation Eternal Life is having Gods spirit in you, being born again we enter the kingdom of God and are in a permanent relationship with Christ. Doctrine doesn't save you, Jesus saves you. And once you are born again you do not become unborn. Having different views on the Atonement are not salvific no more than f=different views within Arminianism/Calvinism are salvific.

hope this helps !!!

 

[guest1]

You have not even touched on the verses that I quoted. Why is that, I wonder?

Gal. 3:11-13 (WEB)
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, “The righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not of faith, but, “The man who does them will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,”

This is about fulfilling the LAW.

Deut. 21:22,23 (WEB)
22 If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree;
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you don’t defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

Do you believe these verses or not?

I believe every single verse in the bible , do you ?

Where is WRATH poured out on the Son in the N.T. ?

Where is God angry with His Son anywhere since wrath means anger/retribution. ?

Why would you believe something not taught in the bible ?

Oh and you quote Deut 21- yikes now Jesus committed sin and was put to death by God for being a sinner ?

Do you really want to go there and have that heresy exposed you believe ?

Maybe its you who doesn't understand the law or its purpose


hope this helps !!!

 

[guest1]

Galatians 3:1-14
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain — if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" — 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:21-27
For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:15-17
15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Are you under the Law ?
Are you a Jew under the O.T. ?
Are you saved by faith alone in Christ alone ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[David1701]

I believe every single verse in the bible , do you ?

Of course I do; but, those who who reject the fact that it pleased the LORD to bruise Jesus, to put him to grief and to bear the curse of the law for us, do not.

Oh and you quote Deut 21- yikes now Jesus committed sin and was put to death by God for being a sinner ?

Do you really want to go there and have that heresy exposed you believe ?

Maybe its you who doesn't understand the law or its purpose

Deut. 21:22,23 is where we get the fact that everyone hanged on a tree is under God's curse. Part of it is quoted in Gal. 3:13, which is why I quoted those verses in the same post.

Gal. 3:11-13 (WEB)
11 Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, “The righteous will live by faith.”
12 The law is not of faith, but, “The man who does them will live by them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,”

This is about fulfilling the LAW.

Deut. 21:22,23 (WEB)
22 If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree;
23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you don’t defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

Obviously, Jesus did not sin; but, he was treated as if he had, because he bore our sins in his own body, on the tree. This is an ESSENTIAL part of the gospel!

 

[David1701]

Galatians 3:1-14
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain — if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" — 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:21-27
For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:15-17
15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Are you under the Law ?
Are you a Jew under the O.T. ?
Are you saved by faith alone in Christ alone ?

hope this helps !!!

What do your questions have to do with what we are discussing? Nothing at all...

I'll answer them anyway.

We are not under law.

I am not a Jew, or under the O.C..

We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 

[fltom]

ltom said:
Nope my argument is PSA makes him guilty

Which is wrong. PSA states He bore our sins on the cross. So if PSA makes him guilty, since you believe He bore our sins on the cross, then your belief does the same. What your belief does not deal with is how the sin ended up on Him that He bore it. As such, your argument makes no sense.

sorry even Calvinist resources hold imputation involves imputed guilt

you are just ignoring the evidence

fltom said:
Your claim above is quite convoluted. PSA would hold that when God looked upon him He saw sin

That is your claim. God looked down and saw... His Son. Anything about how exactly God viewed His Son on the cross is speculation. All we know is that Jesus took our penalty (penal) upon Himself (substitution) and made atonement for us. (atonement). If you believe that Jesus bore our sins upon the cross, and paid our penalty in our place by doing that (which is what a sacrifice did, and here does), then you believe enough of PSA to not be in danger of becoming apostate. You never have to claim PSA, because it is a label of a framework, that is so isolated that it does not speak to the whole of what Jesus did on the cross. Everything you say about God forsaking, Jesus becoming a sinner (once again that is impossible, even in PSA, no matter what you claim), is speculative, because scripture does not explain how it appeared, just that it happened. I just accept that the Bible states that is what happened, and that God doesn't need someone telling Him how to handle His business, He already knows. It WORKED. It doesn't matter if we don't fully understand how.

Sorry if sin is imputed so is guilt for that sin

That is the legal ground PSA uses to justify retributive punishment of Christ

fltom said:
Imputed means to account credit reckon

lay on, put down, accredit, count, etc. (I looked it up.) You cannot, in and of yourself, pick and choose.

laying on of hands does not mean imputing sin

and if you looked it up you saw reckon

fltom said:
If God imputed sin to Christ he would reckon Christ had sinned

No. no. no. That is not what impute means. Sin would be reckoned to Jesus, not that He committed it. That is a different word. impart/transfer. Someone's account can be wrongly credited. (Which is what happened here, however, that was God's intent. Jesus was to be a sacrifice, to be slaughtered in front of the Father, with the Father not stepping in in any way. Jesus willingly faced that for the ultimate goal of reconciliation with mankind. The love of the Godhead, the relationship within the Godhead, reaches it's ultimate peak in what happened on the cross.)

Sorry that is exactly what it means

reckon is a meaning of the Greek

Greek Strong's Number: 3049


Greek Word: λογίζομαι


Transliteration: logizomai


Phonetic Pronunciation:log-id'-zom-ahee


Root: middle voice from <G3056>


Cross Reference: TDNT - 4:284,536


Part of Speech: v


Vine's Words: Account, Consider, Count, Esteem, Impute, Reckon, Reckoning, Think








Usage Notes:





English Words used in KJV:


think 9
impute 8
reckon 6
count 5
account 4
suppose 2
reason 1
number 1


Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

I take it you didn't take the time to look up how vicarious imputation works in law, since it is still a practice today... did you? I am not trying to get you (or civic) to state you are PSA. I couldn't care less. It is more important to accept the aspect of PSA that is a part of the atonement. The element of PSA that affects the atonement. There are other elements in the atonement that are not from PSA.

I take it you do not know what you are talking about

You ignore Calvinist theology concerning the imputation of Adam's sin and the resources which show imputation of sin involves the imputation of guilt

and without that imputation there is no justification for punishment

God hates the punishment of the innocent

fltom said:
You keep ignoring the fact your own theology holds Man guilty of Adams sin and subject to punishment because of the imputation of Adam's sin

No, I keep telling you that we are who we are because Adam was our representative (federally) and as such, when he sinned, it fell on us, and we ALL fell from grace. The Bible is clear that by one man sin entered the world. By one man. We do not create our own sin that made us sinners. We received a sin nature (which Jesus did not have) and as such, were forever stained. We don't need Adam's sin to die, which is why Paul tacked on the --for all have sinned, even though that was not the case from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, because no sin is imputed where there is no law. Once the law came out, that was the case. 100% Death in the human race from the time of Adam to Moses was... legacy, the legacy Adam left to his progeny.

Calvinist theology uses federal headship as justification for imputation and guilt

it appears you do not even know Calvinist theology



The Ground of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin

The ground of the imputation of Adam’s sin, or the reason why the penalty of his sin has come upon all his posterity, according to the doctrine above stated, is the union between us and Adam. There could of course be no propriety in imputing the sin of one man to another unless there were some connection between them to explain and justify such imputation. The Scriptures never speak of the imputation of the sins of angels either to men or to Christ, or of his righteousness to them; because there is no such relation between men and angels, or between angels and Christ, as to involve the one in the judicial consequences of the sin or righteousness of the other. The union between Adam and his posterity which is the ground of the imputation of his sin to them, is both natural and federal. He was their natural head. Such is the relation between parent and child, not only in the case of Adam and his descendants, but in all other cases, that the character and conduct of the one, of necessity to a greater or less degree affect the other. No fact in history is plainer than that children bear the iniquities of their fathers. They suffer for their sins. There must be a reason for this; and a reason founded in the very constitution of our nature. But there was something peculiar in the case of Adam. Over and beyond this natural relation which exists between a man and his posterity, there was a special divine constitution by which he was appointed the head and representative of his whole race.


Adam the Federal Head of his Race

1. The first argument, therefore, in favour of the doctrine of imputation is that the Scriptures present Adam as not only the natural, but also the federal head of his posterity.


Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 196–197.

better learn your own theology first

 

[armylngst]

Well for starters I'll take Jesus own words and teaching on the Atonement.

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The New Covenant prophesied in the OT from Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 tells us that the Covenant would be the forgiveness of sin and the promise of the Holy Spirit in them, permanent dwelling. Hebrews 9:22 confirms that about the New Covenant in His blood. The communion is a celebration of the forgiveness of our sins by His body/blood that was given for us. His death was a sacrifice/ransom for our sins. It was not penal/ wrath/anger from Father to Son but the entire NT declares the opposite it was done our of and in Love that the Father sent the Son.

Each and every day I distance myself further and further away from the penal aspect of the atonement. In fact the Gospels discuss 50% of the time or more focused on the last 3 days of Jesus life and the meaning of His death and Resurrection.

And guess what there is no penal aspect found in the gospels. Jesus said he laid down His life and gave it as a ransom for sin.

hope this helps !!!

I take it you didn't watch the videos. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? How? The law was a law of death. For it to be fulfilled means the death of all humanity, unless... it means Jesus took the penalty upon Himself, and satisfied God's justice. God will never acquit the wicked. (A legal statement.) However, if they are no longer considered wicked, then He can acquit. The penalty was paid by someone else.

If Jesus did not pay a penalty, then why did He die on the cross? Couldn't someone have just run him through with a spear or something? You understand that every bit of pain that Jesus went through, might as well have been dropped on Him by the Father, as the Father did nothing to stop it. That is the same as approving of it.
Colossians 2
"13 When you were dead [k]in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

You claimed (and I can't believe that I actually fell for it) that you believed that Jesus bore your sins on the cross, paying the penalty for your sin, fulfilling the law of death in your place. Oh well. I guess I really am gullible.

 

[armylngst]

sorry even Calvinist resources hold imputation involves imputed guilt

EDIT for insult

you are just ignoring the evidence

Wait, you provided evidence?

Sorry if sin is imputed so is guilt for that sin

So you still deny your authority who stated that the internal character and state of the imputed person remains unchanged? So why didn't you say here is an authority, and what they have to say, but I don't agree with them, negating your argument?

That is the legal ground PSA uses to justify retributive punishment of Christ

You can claim whatever you want, but you are talking to someone who accepts PSA who still has no clue what you are going on about. Perhaps you should watch Mike Winger's videos and get an idea of what you are talking about?

laying on of hands does not mean imputing sin

That is not what it says. It does say lay on hands, but it says that the priest laid the sins of the people on the head of the goat.

and if you looked it up you saw reckon

He did it because He didn't like Him, I reckon. What if it wasn't because He didn't like Him. You understand the word reckon has no power of certainty, right?

Sorry that is exactly what it means
reckon is a meaning of the Greek
Greek Strong's Number: 3049


Greek Word: λογίζομαι


Transliteration: logizomai


Phonetic Pronunciation:log-id'-zom-ahee


Root: middle voice from <G3056>


Cross Reference: TDNT - 4:284,536


Part of Speech: v


Vine's Words: Account, Consider, Count, Esteem, Impute, Reckon, Reckoning, Think








Usage Notes:





English Words used in KJV:


think 9
impute 8
reckon 6
count 5
account 4
suppose 2
reason 1
number 1


Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.






I take it you do not know what you are talking about

You ignore Calvinist theology concerning the imputation of Adam's sin and the resources which show imputation of sin involves the imputation of guilt

and without that imputation there is no justification for punishment

God hates the punishment of the innocent






Calvinist theology uses federal headship as justification for imputation and guilt

it appears you do not even know Calvinist theology



The Ground of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin

The ground of the imputation of Adam’s sin, or the reason why the penalty of his sin has come upon all his posterity, according to the doctrine above stated, is the union between us and Adam. There could of course be no propriety in imputing the sin of one man to another unless there were some connection between them to explain and justify such imputation. The Scriptures never speak of the imputation of the sins of angels either to men or to Christ, or of his righteousness to them; because there is no such relation between men and angels, or between angels and Christ, as to involve the one in the judicial consequences of the sin or righteousness of the other. The union between Adam and his posterity which is the ground of the imputation of his sin to them, is both natural and federal. He was their natural head. Such is the relation between parent and child, not only in the case of Adam and his descendants, but in all other cases, that the character and conduct of the one, of necessity to a greater or less degree affect the other. No fact in history is plainer than that children bear the iniquities of their fathers. They suffer for their sins. There must be a reason for this; and a reason founded in the very constitution of our nature. But there was something peculiar in the case of Adam. Over and beyond this natural relation which exists between a man and his posterity, there was a special divine constitution by which he was appointed the head and representative of his whole race.


Adam the Federal Head of his Race

1. The first argument, therefore, in favour of the doctrine of imputation is that the Scriptures present Adam as not only the natural, but also the federal head of his posterity.


Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 196–197.

better learn your own theology first

"1. The first argument, therefore, in favour of the doctrine of imputation is that the Scriptures present Adam as not only the natural, but also the federal head of his posterity."

This is correct. God gave Adam dominion over all creation, which made him the federal head. When Adam sinned, it fell upon us. However, Jesus did not face this, as He was not of Adam's seed, but was of Eve's seed. Jesus did not have a sin nature. As such, He was innocent. We have a sin nature, so we are guilty. If sin is imputed to us, we are sinners, because we were sinners from the beginning. Jesus, if sin is imputed to Him, remains innocent, because He was sinless from the beginning. His internal character and state remain unchanged.

Imputation in legal use "2) To place responsibility or blame on one person for acts of another person because of a particular relationship, such as mother to child, guardian to ward, employer to employee, or business associates." Savior to saved? Sin offering for sinner? This definition makes it clear why the character and state of the person is unchanged. It clearly states that it is know that the act is of another person.

 

[fltom]

fltom said:
sorry even Calvinist resources hold imputation involves imputed guilt

Are you intentionally ignorant?

Are you unable to actually deal with evidence without resort to insult?

fltom said:
you are just ignoring the evidence

Wait, you provided evidence?

Yes Calvinist resources which contradict your claims

concerning imputation and affirming guilt imputed

you ignored them

fltom said:
Sorry if sin is imputed so is guilt for that sin

So you still deny your authority who stated that the internal character and state of the imputed person remains unchanged? So why didn't you say here is an authority, and what they have to say, but I don't agree with them, negating your argument?

Hello

I am not talking about internal character I am talking about imputed guilt

How is it you constantly mischaracterize , conflate or mistrepresent an argument?

You seem to do it over and over


tg

fltom said:
That is the legal ground PSA uses to justify retributive punishment of Christ

You can claim whatever you want, but you are talking to someone who accepts PSA who still has no clue what you are going on about. Perhaps you should watch Mike Winger's videos and get an idea of what you are talking about?

Is that your confession you do not have a clue

fltom said:
laying on of hands does not mean imputing sin

That is not what it says. It does say lay on hands, but it says that the priest laid the sins of the people on the head of the goat.

Where? quote the verse not your eisegesis

Wordsearch Search results for: lay
Leviticus 3:2 (KJV)
2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.

---

Leviticus 3:8 (KJV)
8 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar.

---

Leviticus 3:13 (KJV)
13 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about.

---

Leviticus 4:4 (KJV)
4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the LORD.

---

Leviticus 4:15 (KJV)
15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.

---

Leviticus 4:24 (KJV)
24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.

---

Leviticus 4:29 (KJV)
29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

---

Leviticus 16:21 (KJV)
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:



The verses spoke of laying hand on the head the sacrificial offering

tn

fltom said:
and if you looked it up you saw reckon

He did it because He didn't like Him, I reckon. What if it wasn't because He didn't like Him. You understand the word reckon has no power of certainty, right?

I understand you do not have a clue here

What is the absurdity you post above

didn't like him ?

from where has that entered into discussion?

fltom said:
Sorry that is exactly what it means
reckon is a meaning of the Greek
Greek Strong's Number: 3049


Greek Word: λογίζομαι

Vine's Words: Account, Consider, Count, Esteem, Impute, Reckon, Reckoning, Think

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:


think 9
impute 8
reckon 6
count 5
account 4
suppose 2
reason 1
number 1


Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.

I take it you do not know what you are talking about

You ignore Calvinist theology concerning the imputation of Adam's sin and the resources which show imputation of sin involves the imputation of guilt

and without that imputation there is no justification for punishment

God hates the punishment of the innocent






Calvinist theology uses federal headship as justification for imputation and guilt

it appears you do not even know Calvinist theology



The Ground of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin

The ground of the imputation of Adam’s sin, or the reason why the penalty of his sin has come upon all his posterity, according to the doctrine above stated, is the union between us and Adam. There could of course be no propriety in imputing the sin of one man to another unless there were some connection between them to explain and justify such imputation. The Scriptures never speak of the imputation of the sins of angels either to men or to Christ, or of his righteousness to them; because there is no such relation between men and angels, or between angels and Christ, as to involve the one in the judicial consequences of the sin or righteousness of the other. The union between Adam and his posterity which is the ground of the imputation of his sin to them, is both natural and federal. He was their natural head. Such is the relation between parent and child, not only in the case of Adam and his descendants, but in all other cases, that the character and conduct of the one, of necessity to a greater or less degree affect the other. No fact in history is plainer than that children bear the iniquities of their fathers. They suffer for their sins. There must be a reason for this; and a reason founded in the very constitution of our nature. But there was something peculiar in the case of Adam. Over and beyond this natural relation which exists between a man and his posterity, there was a special divine constitution by which he was appointed the head and representative of his whole race.


Adam the Federal Head of his Race

1. The first argument, therefore, in favour of the doctrine of imputation is that the Scriptures present Adam as not only the natural, but also the federal head of his posterity.


Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 196–197.

better learn your own theology first

This is correct. God gave Adam dominion over all creation, which made him the federal head. When Adam sinned, it fell upon us. However, Jesus did not face this, as He was not of Adam's seed, but was of Eve's seed. Jesus did not have a sin nature. As such, He was innocent. We have a sin nature, so we are guilty. If sin is imputed to us, we are sinners, because we were sinners from the beginning. Jesus, if sin is imputed to Him, remains innocent, because He was sinless from the beginning. His internal character and state remain unchanged.


Imputation in legal use "2) To place responsibility or blame on one person for acts of another person because of a particular relationship, such as mother to child, guardian to ward, employer to employee, or business associates." Savior to saved? Sin offering for sinner? This definition makes it clear why the character and state of the person is unchanged. It clearly states that it is know that the act is of another person.

Are you still going on with that confused argument?

Not one word has been uttered about a change of internal character

we are talking about that which is accredited

if you credit someone as having sinned you credit that one as guilty of that sin

That is the reality of the evidence you ignored from those of your theological beliefs

and that is the plain logic of the case

If you accredit one of having sinned you credit that one as guilty of that sin

and PSA uses that imputed guilt as the grounds for punishment

 

[armylngst]

Well for starters I'll take Jesus own words and teaching on the Atonement.

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28
This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The New Covenant prophesied in the OT from Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 tells us that the Covenant would be the forgiveness of sin and the promise of the Holy Spirit in them, permanent dwelling. Hebrews 9:22 confirms that about the New Covenant in His blood. The communion is a celebration of the forgiveness of our sins by His body/blood that was given for us. His death was a sacrifice/ransom for our sins. It was not penal/ wrath/anger from Father to Son but the entire NT declares the opposite it was done our of and in Love that the Father sent the Son.

Each and every day I distance myself further and further away from the penal aspect of the atonement. In fact the Gospels discuss 50% of the time or more focused on the last 3 days of Jesus life and the meaning of His death and Resurrection.

And guess what there is no penal aspect found in the gospels. Jesus said he laid down His life and gave it as a ransom for sin.

hope this helps !!!

This is something I should have probably said sooner. While I say I am a Calvinist, I technically am not because I do not like labels. I grew up in a church that was calvinistic. That is, it lined up with the aspects and elements of calvinism, but did not overly emphasize it. It was also more reformed, however, there was no major emphasizing of it. We didn't recite creeds, catechisms, or synods. It was not any highlight of the service. The Bible was. It was a Congregational church, one of the few if any that did not go apostate. The church, when it was founded, was shared with the Puritans. (It's a rather old church, by United States standards.) When the Congregational churches fell away from those beliefs, this church stayed as a strict congregational church, and remained in more in line with the Puritans. (The church is over 200 years old) The pastor was Jewish, who came to believe in Christ at a young age, and was beat by a rabbi for it. (It is an interesting story.)

When it comes to PSA, I am not a full blown proponent, because, even if you go back to the early church fathers, the atonement is not covered by any given theory, but by most/all of them. PSA speaks to Christ bearing our sins on the cross, and paying the penalty for sin in our place. That's about it. (Hence it being called penal(ty) substitutionary atonement.) A lot of people have added a lot to it that is just not right. The main view is that Jesus bore our sins on the cross in our place, facing the penalty of sin (death) in our place, all to be a propitiatory sin sacrifice to God fulfilling the requirements of God's justice, fulfilling the law.

Everything else is trappings, and if you don't fully understand it, God does. Do you trust God and that He knew what He was doing, or do you trust men who say He did not. (That is what it boils down to.) Start with the heart of the atonement, which is Jesus took our sins upon Himself, imputed, not transferred or imparted, and paid the penalty we could never hope to pay, as a sacrifice to God, and not Satan. (Ransom theory? Really? Since you speak to extremist beliefs of PSA, do the same for Ransom theory.) Why would God the Father hand His Son over to Satan?

 

[guest1]

This is something I should have probably said sooner. While I say I am a Calvinist, I technically am not because I do not like labels. I grew up in a church that was calvinistic. That is, it lined up with the aspects and elements of calvinism, but did not overly emphasize it. It was also more reformed, however, there was no major emphasizing of it. We didn't recite creeds, catechisms, or synods. It was not any highlight of the service. The Bible was. It was a Congregational church, one of the few if any that did not go apostate. The church, when it was founded, was shared with the Puritans. (It's a rather old church, by United States standards.) When the Congregational churches fell away from those beliefs, this church stayed as a strict congregational church, and remained in more in line with the Puritans. (The church is over 200 years old) The pastor was Jewish, who came to believe in Christ at a young age, and was beat by a rabbi for it. (It is an interesting story.)

When it comes to PSA, I am not a full blown proponent, because, even if you go back to the early church fathers, the atonement is not covered by any given theory, but by most/all of them. PSA speaks to Christ bearing our sins on the cross, and paying the penalty for sin in our place. That's about it. (Hence it being called penal(ty) substitutionary atonement.) A lot of people have added a lot to it that is just not right. The main view is that Jesus bore our sins on the cross in our place, facing the penalty of sin (death) in our place, all to be a propitiatory sin sacrifice to God fulfilling the requirements of God's justice, fulfilling the law.

Everything else is trappings, and if you don't fully understand it, God does. Do you trust God and that He knew what He was doing, or do you trust men who say He did not. (That is what it boils down to.) Start with the heart of the atonement, which is Jesus took our sins upon Himself, imputed, not transferred or imparted, and paid the penalty we could never hope to pay, as a sacrifice to God, and not Satan. (Ransom theory? Really? Since you speak to extremist beliefs of PSA, do the same for Ransom theory.) Why would God the Father hand His Son over to Satan?

I’ve said there is truth in all the the theories but none of them are 100% correct or all encompassing to which you are in agreement. The part of PSA I reject has only to do with the Son receiving wrath from the Father. Earlier I posted definitions of propitiation and expiation. Did you see that ?

And from those definitions I agree with propitiation and expiation with the atonement.

Atonement provides forgiveness for sins and it turns away Gods anger/wrath from happening. It diverts or stops Gods wrath from being received . It stops Gods punishment from happening.

What is does not do is receive Gods wrath/anger. The Atonement like the Passover allows those protected to not be the recipient of His wrath.


hope this helps !!!

 

[guest1]

Propitiation- the turning away of Gods anger/wrath
Expiation- the covering for our sins

Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was cancelled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin.got?


hope this helps!!!

 

[guest1]

Here is a quote from page 147-148

III. THE WRATH OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

lt has for long been recognized that the use of the word-group in the LXX is not the same as that in profane sources. Westcott, for example, has made much of this difference. In recent years none has done more than C. H. Dodd to demonstrate both the fact and the significance of this difference, and he roundly denies that we should understand the word-group of 'propitiation' at all. 'Ex1 lbid. 2 See below, pp. 203ff., for similar accusatives. 3 Loc. cit. 4 Lcv:. cit. 148 THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING OF THE CROSS expiation', he thinks, is the meaning. Thus he says of Romans 3 : 25: 'the meaning conveyed (in accordance with LXX usage, which is conclusively determinative for Paul), is that of expiation, not that of propitiation. Most translators and commentators are wrong.'1 Or again: 'The Johannine usage thus falls into line with biblical usage in general. The common rendering "propitiation" is illegitimate here as elsewhere.'2 These are important conclusions and they are being increasingly accepted, for it is a relief to know that we have solid grounds for our conviction that the God of the Bible is not a Being who can be propitiated after the fashion of a pagan deity. That this point has been conclusively demonstrated is certain. The Bible writers have nothing to do with pagan conceptions of a capricious and vindictive deity, inflicting arbitrary punishments on offending worshippers, who must then bribe him back to a good mood by the appropriate offerings. Dodd' s important work makes this abundantly clear. However, when we have rendered our full tribute to the work of this great scholar, we must ask to be forgiven for wondering whether the last word has yet been said. We readily agree that pagan ideas of wrath and propitiation are absent from the biblical view of God

 

[fltom]

Propitiation- the turning away of Gods anger/wrath
Expiation- the covering for our sins

Here it is man who is being propitiated

Colossians 1:21–22 (EOB: NT)

21 In the past, you were alienated and hostile in mind by your evil actions. 22 But now, he has reconciled [you] in the body of his flesh through death, in order to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him.

2 Corinthians 5:19–20 (EOB: NT)

19 What I mean is that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not imputing sins, but having entrusted us with the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors of Christ: it is as if God were making [his] supplication through us: we beg you, on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!

 

[Our Lord's God]

16.1. The Cross: God Divided against Himself?​

16.1.1. The Penal Substitution View

The penal substitution model depicts Jesus as God’s propitiatory victim and humanity’s penal substitute. In so doing, this model depicts God the Father acting against God the Son—bruising and smiting him, striking him with vengeance, punishing him and shedding his blood. Again, Hodge: “It pleased the Lord to bruise him. He was smitten of God and afflicted.” Bonhoeffer: “God’s vengeance is extinguished [upon Jesus] … who was stricken by God’s vengeance for our salvation.” MacArthur: “Here’s what was happening on the cross: God was punishing His own Son.…” And Cranfield: “God … purposed to direct against His very own Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved.” Effectively, these descriptions of the cross depict atonement being made by means of a violent intra-Trinitarian transaction: the first person of the Trinity, God the Father, punishes the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, to satisfy the first person.

This language suggests a picture of the Triune God in which the Son is a “detachable person” of the Godhead—from whom the Father can separate himself and remove himself to a distance, over against whom the Father can stand, and upon whom the Father can act for his own sake, to satisfy himself. In penal substitution perspective, the cross involves the Father acting against or upon the Son and so reveals God divided against himself. The penal substitution model thus implies a Trinity comprising not only distinct but separable, even conflicting, persons—quite contrary to the ecumenical creedal affirmation of Nicaea and Constantinople. The orthodox Trinity comprises three distinct but inseparable persons—Father, Son, and Spirit—who are “one in being” or “of the same essence” or “consubstantial” (homoousion). That the creed affirms three distinct divine persons who are “one in being” entails that we should not think that any one person of the Trinity can be divided off from the others. Likewise, we should not think of the distinct divine persons as three individuated instantiations of a generic “divine substance” that can exist as independent beings. Trinitarian theology, that is, is not “tritheism.” Fiddes aptly observes: “One of the problems of a theory of penal substitution is that it depends for its logic upon a strong individualization of Father and Son as independent subjects, which makes it hard to speak of the one personal reality of a God who becomes vulnerable for love’s sake within his creation[1]

---

[1] Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 292–293.

Typical Trinitarianism. Say one thing today, another tomorrow.

Don't confuse person and being......... only we get to do that.
Indivisible........... except when we say so.
Etc.

 

[fltom]

Typical Trinitarianism. Say one thing today, another tomorrow.

Don't confuse person and being......... only we get to do that.
Indivisible........... except when we say so.
Etc.

Care to expound upon your claim?