Inside the Atonement: What Christ Actually Did on the Cross

[Arial]

There are five words that show up in Scripture that pertain to the atonement Jesus made for sinners. Those persons who are Calvinist/Reformed, for the most part, and certainly on this forum, are well schooled in these terms.

In my first years as a Christian in Armenian churches, they were not. None were examined or given proper exposition of. As a result, the full depth and glory of the work of Christ on the cross is not seen. I find the same thing to be true on the various forums that are not Reformed oriented and the Reformed are mocked. In trying to discuss them and bring them into the light, I have found that the majority have little knowledge or ability to understand, even what it being said. It is a case of "you don't know what you don't know, and yet truly believing that you do know."

Too often the view of the cross is simply "Christ died on the cross providing forgiveness of my sins." What he did was simply, die on the cross, but little is known of what he was doing on that cross. Which is why they can say he bore the sins of all without exception, but you have to choose to accept the forgiveness he offers. It is why the fact that that is a self-contradictory statement is invisible to the one who says it.

Those five things are:

1. Substitution
2. Ransom
3. Propitiation
4. Imputation
5. Justification

They all exist beneath and because of God's grace. We will examine each of them in the following posts to shorten the length of each post.

 

[JesusFan]

There are five words that show up in Scripture that pertain to the atonement Jesus made for sinners. Those persons who are Calvinist/Reformed, for the most part, and certainly on this forum, are well schooled in these terms.

In my first years as a Christian in Armenian churches, they were not. None were examined or given proper exposition of. As a result, the full depth and glory of the work of Christ on the cross is not seen. I find the same thing to be true on the various forums that are not Reformed oriented and the Reformed are mocked. In trying to discuss them and bring them into the light, I have found that the majority have little knowledge or ability to understand, even what it being said. It is a case of "you don't know what you don't know, and yet truly believing that you do know."

Too often the view of the cross is simply "Christ died on the cross providing forgiveness of my sins." What he did was simply, die on the cross, but little is known of what he was doing on that cross. Which is why they can say he bore the sins of all without exception, but you have to choose to accept the forgiveness he offers. It is why the fact that that is a self-contradictory statement is invisible to the one who says it.

Those five things are:

1. Substitution
2. Ransom
3. Propitiation
4. Imputation
5. Justification

They all exist beneath and because of God's grace. We will examine each of them in the following posts to shorten the length of each post.

The theory of the Atonement one holds with for the Cross has much to o with this, for if one sees it as PST, would tend to see it as explained by Pauline Justification, but if one denies that view for say a NT Wright view, tends to get pretty murky

 

[Arial]

Substitution

Since all of this is grace, I will take a moment to deal with the illusiveness in non-Reformed circles of that word grace. It too is often seen as simply mercy. As a word whose meaning does not go beyond its basic horizontal level of "undeserved favor".

When we speak of the grace of God it pertains to his absolute holiness and the condition of mankind as born of natural birth, therefore in Adam, as a sinful creature and a personal sinner. That is a gap that man cannot bridge. He cannot change who he is. Only God himself can make a way to reconcile a sinner to himself. Only God can remove the sin. He has no obligation to do that, we don't deserve it, we cannot merit it on any grounds; therefore, if God does so it is pure grace.

Is 53:4-6

“Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows…
he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for our sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."

Jesus went to the cross to take upon his own body what we deserve. He became as though he were a sinner himself, though he was perfectly righteous. Most I would say understand this, but it is not as though the Father were simply saying, "Kill him and I will forgive the sins of the sinner."

Sin is legal guilt. God is loving, but he is also just. His justice says in Ex 34:7 "I will by no means clear the guilty." and in Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death."

The Judge of all the earth, her King and sovereign pronounces sentence upon the high treason committed in the Garden of Ede, and by all of mankind since. For God to simply forgive without judgement would be for him to deny his own righteousness.

We, as creatures have no way of bearing our own penalty and live. He must punish sin, but he also has a desire, as Scripture shows us, to save some sinners. If there is no substitute, salvation is impossible.

 

[Arial]

Ransom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Arial]

Propitiation

Romans 3:24-25 "--- and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

God himself provides the propitiation, and it is by blood. It demonstrates God's righteousness.​

1 John 2:1-2 "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Gather, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

A completed propitiatory work.​

​

A look at the Greek word translated "propitiate/make atonement.

Hilaskomai-verb: Satisfy or turn away wrath. To deal with guilt so that offense is removed, not just covered over.

In Heb 2:17 "----to make propitiation for the sins of the people." the author uses the verb to describe Christ's active work. He does something objective with sin. Sin has created a real offense; God's wrath is not ignored or redefined; Christ acts upon Godward justice and not merely human conscience.

Hilasmos-noun: the means by which wrath is satisfied. A wrath-averting sacrifice.

1 John 4:10 "He is the propitiation for our sins--"
1 John 4:10 "---sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Christ is the propitiation, he does not merely provide it, and the effect is enduring. This is very important in understanding the work of the atonement.​

​

Hilasterion: mercy seat/propitiatory place. Paul uses this in Romans 3:25 "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood---"

Paul is deliberately using temple language with "blood", "public display", and satisfaction of justice. Christ is presented as the true mercy seat, the place where judgement and mercy meet, and the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.

Without this propitiation the cross is emptied of judicial meaning. The judicial meaning of the cross is to say

• God is a Judge
• Sin is legal guilt
• Christ bears penalty
• Justice is satisfied
• Justification is a verdict.

So, what happens when judicial meaning is removed?

• Justification is no longer a declaration
• It becomes a process or experience
• Righteousness is infused or developed, not imputed

Without judicial satisfaction:

• Faith becomes cooperation
• Assurance depends on progress
• Peace with God becomes provisional

The Cross becomes example, not substitute and Christ's death becomes:

• a moral influence
• a revelation of love
• a victory motif alone but not a penalty-bearing act

It makes Christ having done something to you but not for you. Grasping a hold of propitiation is of utmost importance in understanding Christ and the atonement.

Without propitiation there is no substitution, and no ransom has been paid.

 

[Arial]

Imputation

2 Cor 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"

Our sin imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness imputed to us. This is a legal term, always meaning to regard, credit, or account. It never means to make morally righteous.

Imputed - logizoma: to credit, to reckon, to count, to place to one's account. It is bookkeeping and courtroom language. Paul uses the word eleven time in Romans 4.

Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

"Made righteous" means here constituted legally just as Adam's sin was legally imputed.

Phil 3:8-9 "Not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith."

1 Cor 1:30 "Christ Jesus--became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption."

Christ is not merely an example but he himself is our righteousness.

If Christ's righteousness is not imputed through his work on the cross, then the cross no longer accomplishes full salvation but only makes it possible. It transforms the gospel from an accomplished verdict into an ongoing project. It is a completely different understanding of the cross itself.

Christ as our substitute, bears our guilt, by his blood pays our ransom. This propitiates God's wrath and as a result, his righteousness is imputed to us.

Substitution explains who stands in our place.​

Ransom explains what his death accomplishes.​

Propitiation explains why God accepts the substitution and ransom.​

Imputation explains how the benefit of Christ's work is legally applied to the believer.​

​

Remove any of those and the cross loses its power to forgive the sins of the sinner and the legal standing of reconciled to God. And a different gospel is being preached.

​

​

​

​

 

[Arial]

Justification

Romans 4:5 "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."

It is Jesus in his work on the cross who justifies the ungodly, through faith being counted as righteousness. It is the imputation form which the justification flows, through faith.

Romans 8:33 "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies."

This is courtroom language. It is a legal declaration, just as death for sin is a legal declaration that must meet justice.

Romans 5:9 "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God."

Justification is grounded in Christ's blood on the cross. It ties justification directly to:

blood​

wrath​

is propitiation logic​

​

Justification involves imputation (Romans 4:3,6).

Our justification brings peace and assurance. Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

We are fully and permanently reconciled to God only on the basis of the actual work (what he was actually accomplishing and enduring) of Jesus on the cross.

Without understanding that these five things are what Christ was doing when he went to the cross for those God is giving him, we have a one-dimensional Jesus and a one-dimensional gospel, at best, and a lot of passages that cause us confusion and/or lead to inaccurate teaching and understanding. Let's see what happens if any of those five things is removed or just simply never looked at.
Summary
Substitution
Remove substitution and Christ does not stand in our place. If Christ did not stand where the sinner stood, then no sinner's penalty was executed. There would be no actual salvation.

Ransom
If no price is paid, nothing is actually released. No liberation from the kingdom of darkness.

Propitiation
Remove propitiation and wrath is not satisfied. The coherence of Romans 1-3 collapses, as does God's justice and the necessity of blood. If wrath is not satisfied, then justification is unjust. The gospel then would present a benevolent but unjust God, and the cross would be unnecessary.

Imputation
Remove imputation and Christ's righteousness is not credited. There would be no justification by faith alone. no assurance. and no exchange of our sin to him, and his righteousness to us. The cross would become a reset button and a second chance, but not righteousness-giving.

Forgiven sinners would still be unrighteous sinners. God requires perfect righteousness, and a neutral status cannot stand in his court. The gospel would become, salvation is probation, assurance is impossible.

Justification
Remove justification and there is no legal declaration. No peace with God, no freedom from condemnation, no finality of salvation. The cross becomes a process, a potential, a relationship without verdict.

If God never declares "righteous" the believer remains under accusation. What it does to the gospel is remove peace, brings uncertainty, no completed salvation.

Each step resolves a problem that the next step assumes has already been solved. If even one element is removed the gospel collapses.

Don't take the atonement lightly and without exploration if you want to truly know the Lord and what he laid down his life to do.

​

​

​

 

[Arial]

I posted this on another forum to see what kind of response it would elicit since not much happened here. That is not an accusation. The things posted here are, I would say, known and thoroughly known, by most active members. It was mainly posted hoping it would be useful to some lurkers and possible to those of the A'ist persuasion as I have found in discussions with them that usually their perspective on the atonement is flat--one dimensional.

The other forum is populated mostly by A'ists of one form or another.

It got a lot of response and every bit of it challenged almost every point. In doing so an almost complete lack of knowledge of basic traditional Christianity was revealed. It is as though we can make up whatever we want to about God, humanity, redemption, substitution, ransom, propitiation, imputation, justification. There was zero understanding of any of those powerful terms that blossom throughout the NT in regard to Christ. And there was no ability to hear, no willingness to listen. Only an interest in tearing it down. And these were people who claim to be Christians.

"My people perish from lack of knowledge." They have no shepherds, no teachers and the teachers they do have know nothing.

When I come "face to face" with the condition of the modern church like this, my heart breaks. For them. For Christ.

Our walls are broken down, and our gates are burned with fire.

I put this here so it would make sense what I am talking about. But it paralles @His clay's thread
https://christcentered.community.fo...ially-loses-its-credibility.3498/#post-132878

 

[JesusFan]

I am on another web site forum, and big problem is that the moderator over there denies penal substitutionary atonement, and is parroting views of NT Wrong on it

 

[atpollard]

I have generated more heat than light in response to attempts to discuss this topic, leaving me “once bitten, twice shy”. As a result, my comments shall be extremely focused and brief.

Substitution

Since all of this is grace, I will take a moment to deal with the illusiveness in non-Reformed circles of that word grace. It too is often seen as simply mercy. As a word whose meaning does not go beyond its basic horizontal level of "undeserved favor".

No comment.

When we speak of the grace of God it pertains to his absolute holiness and the condition of mankind as born of natural birth, therefore in Adam, as a sinful creature and a personal sinner. That is a gap that man cannot bridge. He cannot change who he is. Only God himself can make a way to reconcile a sinner to himself. Only God can remove the sin. He has no obligation to do that, we don't deserve it, we cannot merit it on any grounds; therefore, if God does so it is pure grace.

Agreed.

Is 53:4-6

“Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows…
he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered for our sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."

I (personally) take note of what it says and what it does not say to avoid going beyond what God has actually stated.

• Jesus “bore our griefs and carried our sorrows” … [Question: Did God the Son not do that merely by becoming a man and experiencing human existence? Was this achieved even BEFORE the cross?]
• Jesus was
  • “pierced FOR our transgressions”
  • “crushed FOR our iniquities”
  • “suffered FOR our sins”
  • … What is the meaning of FOR? Did Jesus suffer BECAUSE we transgressed and had iniquity (in order to redress our sin issue)? Were our actual “transgressions” and “iniquities” placed upon Jesus for disposal?
• The “chastisement” (crucifixion) that fell upon Jesus “brought us peace” … describes the result, not the reason.
• Jesus “wounds” healed us … describes the result, not the reason.

Jesus went to the cross to take upon his own body what we deserve. He became as though he were a sinner himself, though he was perfectly righteous. Most I would say understand this, but it is not as though the Father were simply saying, "Kill him and I will forgive the sins of the sinner."

The quoted verses do not actually say that Jesus took what we deserve.
It says that Jesus suffered to deliver us from sin and back to God.

Sin is legal guilt. God is loving, but he is also just. His justice says in Ex 34:7 "I will by no means clear the guilty." and in Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death."

God also says that He will forgive and “remember no more” and not judge those that trust in God.
It is those that persist in sin that store up wrath for the day of wrath.

The Judge of all the earth, her King and sovereign pronounces sentence upon the high treason committed in the Garden of Eden, and by all of mankind since. For God to simply forgive without judgement would be for him to deny his own righteousness.

Yet God states that is exactly what he does.

We, as creatures have no way of bearing our own penalty and live. He must punish sin, but he also has a desire, as Scripture shows us, to save some sinners. If there is no substitute, salvation is impossible.

It is OPINION that God MUST punish sinners. It is SCRIPTURE that God desires to “show mercy on whomever he will show mercy”. The word “substitute” only appeared in the OT (animals for animals); Jesus is our “propitiation” (the “thing” that regains favor).

 

[makesends]

I am on another web site forum, and big problem is that the moderator over there denies penal substitutionary atonement, and is parroting views of NT Wrong on it

curious as to whether that is a recently begun site like, the last two years...?

 

[Arial]

I (personally) take note of what it says and what it does not say to avoid going beyond what God has actually stated.

• Jesus “bore our griefs and carried our sorrows” … [Question: Did God the Son not do that merely by becoming a man and experiencing human existence? Was this achieved even BEFORE the cross?]

I know how heated the PSA discussion usually gets. It mostly devolves into people arguing with people, so I will endeavor to stick to a discussion of the scriptures and to conclusions based on them and the evidence we have within the Bible. I have a feeling that the debate would never have occurred if someone(s) had not coined the phrase penal substitutionary atonement and then attempted to describe it in those terms. Taking a hard look at it elicited natural emotional responses. And then ways were found to soften it. (Whether it was correct or not.) The argument became about how we can/should and can't/shouldn't announce out loud about God.

So, regarding Is. 53. Was it enough that God the Son became a man and experienced human existence to qualify as "he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows"? Was that portion of Is. 53 accomplished before the cross?

I will just say "no" on the basis that he had to die like us also. That is in fact the critical point. If he didn't die, he could not be resurrected, and if he was not resurrected, he could not return to the Father as our King and High Priest. Could not become the mediator of the New Covenant. And if he was not resurrected, there would be no resurrection for the dead in Christ (1 Cor 15). In addition, unless he died, and was dying in our place, he could not conquer sin and death.

Without his death actually doing something with God for us, there would be no justification, no imputation, no redemption.

Jesus was

• “pierced FOR our transgressions”
• “crushed FOR our iniquities”
• “suffered FOR our sins”
• … What is the meaning of FOR? Did Jesus suffer BECAUSE we transgressed and had iniquity (in order to redress our sin issue)? Were our actual “transgressions” and “iniquities” placed upon Jesus for disposal?

The Hebrew uses a causal construction of the word translated "for" in English.

Hebrew text:

• v.4: ḥŏlāyênû hûʾ nāśāʾ — “our sicknesses he bore”
• v.5: mĕḥōlāl mippĕšāʿênû — “pierced because of our transgressions”
• v.5: mĕdukkāʾ mēʿăwōnōtênû — “crushed because of our iniquities”

The substitutionary force does not come from the word "for" alone. It comes from three things together.

(1) Verbs of bearing​

• נָשָׂא (nāśāʾ) — “to bear, carry, lift away”
• סָבַל (sābal) — “to carry a burden”

These verbs are used elsewhere for:

• bearing guilt
• bearing punishment
• bearing another's burden

• The passive suffering language​

  • “pierced”
  • “crushed”
  • “chastisement was upon him”
• He suffers what the cause (our sin) deserves.
  
  

  (3) Isaiah 53:6 — explicit transfer​

  “YHWH laid on him the iniquity of us all”

  Hebrew:
  
  

  וַיהוָה הִפְגִּיעַ בּוֹ אֵת עֲוֹן כֻּלָּנוּ

  This is not “for” at all, but an actual act of imputation/transfer

4. Putting it together precisely​

So in Isaiah 53:4–6:

• “For” = “because of / on account of” (grammatically)
• Substitution = inferred from the action and result, not the preposition alone

A precise paraphrase would be:

“He was pierced because of our transgressions—yet he bore what those transgressions deserved.”

• The “chastisement” (crucifixion) that fell upon Jesus “brought us peace” … describes the result, not the reason.
• Jesus “wounds” healed us … describes the result, not the reason.

Yes. And?

The quoted verses do not actually say that Jesus took what we deserve.
It says that Jesus suffered to deliver us from sin and back to God.

Yes, grammatically, they do.

I will cover the rest in a separate post as this is getting too long already.

 

[Arial]

God also says that He will forgive and “remember no more” and not judge those that trust in God.
It is those that persist in sin that store up wrath for the day of wrath.

We are talking of the work that Christ did on the cross for those who do trust in God. Those who have been united to Christ through faith. He forgives and justifies them because Jesus substituted himself and his perfect righteousness, gave his own life and body as a ransom to pay their debt of sin, satisfied the wrath of God against them and their sin, making it possible for his righteousness to be legally imputed to them, just as their sins were imputed to him, (a transfer); and through faith they are justified (in legal right standing with God, reconciled to him). Thus, it is referred to in Psalms as "justice and mercy kiss".

If Jesus did not do this and God forgives anyway, then he has violated his own just judgement "I will by no means clear the guilty." and "The wages of sin is death". If Jesus did not do this on the cross, then it would indeed be God simply killing the innocent and letting the guilty go free. But nothing would have actually been accomplished in the sinner.

Yet God states that is exactly what he does.

He does deny his own righteousness. Where does it say that he forgives without judgement? He forgives the believer because Christ, in order to purchase a people for God, took the burden of the judgement upon himself. He carried their sins into the grave and conquered sin and death by rising again to life. It is not accepting or understanding the substitution, wrath, and propitiation that was the work of Jesus on the cross that makes it look like God is violating his own words by forgiving without judgment.

It is OPINION that God MUST punish sinners. It is SCRIPTURE that God desires to “show mercy on whomever he will show mercy”. The word “substitute” only appeared in the OT (animals for animals); Jesus is our “propitiation” (the “thing” that regains favor).

The first statement is an overstatement when it uses the word "must". The scriptures show us that God does punish sinners. It shows us God's simplicity---that is that he doesn't just possess his attributes, but he is his attributes. He is not made up of parts. Part love, part righteous, part just, part good, part merciful, part omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. Part anything. He is all of his attributes all of the time and in equal measure. They do not ebb and flow or change ever and are not affected by circumstance. Mercy never overrides justice, and it never overrides his just wrath. In Christ, and only as a substitute to bear that wrath against sin and sinner, can mercy and justice both exist together.

And no matter how many times the word "substitute" is or isn't mentioned in the NT, the principle is laid out in the OT sacrifical system which was temporary and pointing to the coming Christ. And the principle of substitution in relation to the work of Christ fills the NT scriptures.

In those scriptures where Jesus is called our propitiation the context is within passages dealing with satisfying the wrath of God against sin. It means much more that the thing that regains favor. If it is only something that regained favor, and not a penal bearing act, ---well, that is what makes God's anger (not wrath but vengeful anger) to be what was satisfied by nothing more than his own Son suffering and dying.

 

[JesusFan]

curious as to whether that is a recently begun site like, the last two years...?

Nope, been going for think decades now

 

[JesusFan]

We are talking of the work that Christ did on the cross for those who do trust in God. Those who have been united to Christ through faith. He forgives and justifies them because Jesus substituted himself and his perfect righteousness, gave his own life and body as a ransom to pay their debt of sin, satisfied the wrath of God against them and their sin, making it possible for his righteousness to be legally imputed to them, just as their sins were imputed to him, (a transfer); and through faith they are justified (in legal right standing with God, reconciled to him). Thus, it is referred to in Psalms as "justice and mercy kiss".

If Jesus did not do this and God forgives anyway, then he has violated his own just judgement "I will by no means clear the guilty." and "The wages of sin is death". If Jesus did not do this on the cross, then it would indeed be God simply killing the innocent and letting the guilty go free. But nothing would have actually been accomplished in the sinner.

He does deny his own righteousness. Where does it say that he forgives without judgement? He forgives the believer because Christ, in order to purchase a people for God, took the burden of the judgement upon himself. He carried their sins into the grave and conquered sin and death by rising again to life. It is not accepting or understanding the substitution, wrath, and propitiation that was the work of Jesus on the cross that makes it look like God is violating his own words by forgiving without judgment.

The first statement is an overstatement when it uses the word "must". The scriptures show us that God does punish sinners. It shows us God's simplicity---that is that he doesn't just possess his attributes, but he is his attributes. He is not made up of parts. Part love, part righteous, part just, part good, part merciful, part omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. Part anything. He is all of his attributes all of the time and in equal measure. They do not ebb and flow or change ever and are not affected by circumstance. Mercy never overrides justice, and it never overrides his just wrath. In Christ, and only as a substitute to bear that wrath against sin and sinner, can mercy and justice both exist together.

And no matter how many times the word "substitute" is or isn't mentioned in the NT, the principle is laid out in the OT sacrifical system which was temporary and pointing to the coming Christ. And the principle of substitution in relation to the work of Christ fills the NT scriptures.

In those scriptures where Jesus is called our propitiation the context is within passages dealing with satisfying the wrath of God against sin. It means much more that the thing that regains favor. If it is only something that regained favor, and not a penal bearing act, ---well, that is what makes God's anger (not wrath but vengeful anger) to be what was satisfied by nothing more than his own Son suffering and dying.

many seem to forget or just not accept that we have incurred before the Father a sin debt obligation before were saved, and that not even God could just make that disappear with someone paying the price for our sin and disobedience

 

[makesends]

many seem to forget or just not accept that we have incurred before the Father a sin debt obligation before were saved, and that not even God could just make that disappear with someone paying the price for our sin and disobedience

I expect you meant to say, "...without someone paying the price...", or am I reading something wrong again?

When you say that "not even God could just make that disappear [without] someone paying the price for our sin and disobedience", you are, as in all such statements as to what God can or cannot do, not promoting ideas of God being limited, but that the whole notion of making sin debt "just disappear" runs contrary to the justice and purposes of God. It is, in other words, a bogus notion, that God would do such a thing, yes?

 

[JesusFan]

I expect you meant to say, "...without someone paying the price...", or am I reading something wrong again?

When you say that "not even God could just make that disappear [without] someone paying the price for our sin and disobedience", you are, as in all such statements as to what God can or cannot do, not promoting ideas of God being limited, but that the whole notion of making sin debt "just disappear" runs contrary to the justice and purposes of God. It is, in other words, a bogus notion, that God would do such a thing, yes?

Meant yto state that God required in order to be able to justify us when sinners someone to pay for, atone for our sin debt obligation, which Jesus did for us when he took upon himself our due wrath and condemnation