As I said, the prophets predicted a suffering servant. They did not know who it was or the fact that he would become the triumphal servant.
Reconciled to God while enemies !
- Thread starter brightfame52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good question.
In Romans 3, Paul teaches that the cross was God’s public demonstration of His righteousness. For generations, God had been forgiving sins, and the cross shows that this mercy is not moral laxity. Christ bears the *exposure* of sin so that God’s justice is vindicated before the world. Then in Romans 6, Paul argues that those who accept the gospel accept the *meaning* of the cross: what Christ received is what I deserve. By agreeing with that verdict, believers participate in His death and rise into the new life His resurrection makes possible.
In Hebrews, the emphasis shifts to Christ’s obedience. His sufferings were the arena in which His faithfulness was proven, and that perfected obedience is the basis of His priestly authority. Because He passed through death and now possesses an indestructible life, He intercedes for His people with a legitimacy no other priest could claim. His resurrection life is the guarantee that He can raise His followers “with a shout,” exercising a priesthood that death cannot interrupt.
In 1 John, the cross is described in terms of propitiation—not as God venting wrath on His Son, but as God being pleased with the Son’s faithful obedience. Jesus lived sinlessly, offered Himself willingly, and revealed the righteousness of God in His suffering. Because the Father delights in the Son, He grants the Son’s requests on behalf of His people. Christ’s accepted offering becomes the foundation of His ongoing intercession, ensuring that His followers stand before God under the favor He secured.
That is the short answer. I can go into more detail if you like.
You believe that reconciliation requires agreement from both parties and is not unilaterally given by God alone -
that Christ isn't the Savior?
Again, it is NOT a paid debt. Paul argues that the decree was blotted out, not paid.
I know it is hard for you to accept that forgiveness is not the same thing as payment, but allow the Bible and common sense to prevail. Jesus has been given authority to forgive sins. He told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. Jesus said this well before he went to the cross.
I just explained that to you David knew of the coming mercy of the Messiah, that He would come through his linage Lk 1
John Gill on Ps 32 5
I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; not unto men, though in some cases confession of sin is to be made to men; a confession of it in general is to be made to the churches, and administrators of ordinances, in order to admission into a church state, and to the ordinances of Christ, Matthew 3:6; and in case of private offences, faults are to be confessed one to another, and forgiveness granted; and in case of public offences, a confession should be made to a church publicly; partly for the satisfaction of the church, and partly for the glory of divine grace; but confession is not to be made to a priest, or to a person in a ministerial character, in order for absolution; but to the Lord only, against whom sin is committed, and who only can pardon it: and this the psalmist saith in his heart he would do, and did do it; he not only confessed facts, but the fault of them, with their evil circumstances, and that he justly deserved punishment for them; and this he did from his heart, with abhorrence of the sins committed by him, and in faith, with a view to the pardoning mercy of God in Christ;
and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. That is, either the guilt of his sin, which he took away from him; or the punishment of it, which he delivered him from: moreover, this phrase may denote the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and so may both express the sense which the psalmist had of it, and exalt the grace of God in the forgiveness of it; by which must be meant a fresh manifestation and application of pardon to his soul: now, when confession of sin, and remission of it, are thus put together, the sense is not that confession of sin is the cause of pardon; it is not the moving cause of it, that is the grace and mercy of God; nor the procuring and meritorious cause of it, that is the blood of Christ: it is not for the sake of a sinner's confession of sin, but for Christ's sake, that sin is forgiven; but this is the way in which it is enjoyed; and such as truly repent of sin, and sincerely confess it, are the persons to whom the Lord manifests his forgiving love; such may expect it, Proverbs 28:13. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/32-5.htm
So yes David confessed sin seeking forgiveness based on the Person and work of the Messiah to come. I know you wont accept this, because you think you know everything already.
Plus, David was indwelt with the Holy Spirit
[Psa 51:11 KJV]
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
I think the question is built on an assumption I don’t share. Saying that reconciliation involves both parties does *not* mean that Christ isn’t the Savior or that God doesn’t take the initiative. In Scripture, God is always the one who moves first — He provides the sacrifice, He sends the Son, He opens the way, He calls people to Himself. But reconciliation, by definition, is the restoration of a relationship, and relationships are not restored unilaterally. God offers peace through Christ; humans must respond to that offer. My point is simply that James, Paul, and Jesus all describe salvation as God’s gracious initiative that calls for a human response. Recognizing that two‑sided reality doesn’t diminish Christ’s role — it clarifies it, because it shows that He is the Savior who both makes reconciliation possible and summons us into it.
It does if Christ is THE (singular) Savior, which He is. Are you familiar with the stipulations of the New Covenant?
And indwelt by Christ because David was a Prophet see 1 Pet 1:11-12; Acts 2:30
Yes, and it is kind of strange to me because, if I remember correctly (and maybe I don't), but he seemed to argue in favor of election,
which would contradict his recent posts.
And I just explained to you that David, himself, tells you why God forgave him.
I appreciate the reference to John Gill, but I think we all need to be careful about a very common tendency — reading our theological systems back into the biblical text. Psalm 32 is David’s own testimony about the joy of being forgiven, not a discussion of how forgiveness must be purchased. When later interpreters use David’s words to defend a particular atonement theory, it’s easy to make the text say more than David intended. My point isn’t to dismiss Gill or your tradition, but simply to remind us that good interpretation starts with letting the passage speak in its own voice before we fit it into our theological framework.
Yeah, I had said earlier that he made some pretty good points, but I noticed the inconsistency right away.
You dont listen, you think you already know everything. I even gave you a reliable source that understands David sought mercy and forgiveness based on Christ. You think God forgives sins apart from Christ, whether He had died yet or not. You are in error there and serious error
I listen and I respond. You cite a passage that did not make your case.
Let me quote it here to highlight the word that defeats your point.
Colossians 2:14
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.
The Greek word behind "having canceled out" is related to "whitewash". Paul says that our certificate of debt was blotted out, it was covered over with whitewash, it became as if it never happened. If a debt were paid, the document would not be whitewashed or erased. It would be stamped “paid in full” or archived as settled. But Paul deliberately chooses the verb ἐξαλείφω (exaleiphō) — to wipe off, smear out, obliterate, erase — the word used for removing ink from a wax tablet so that no record remains.
Check it out for yourself.
No, God unilaterally satisfied all in/with the New Covenant.