Reconciled to God while enemies !

[rogerg]

Quote the scripture where David says that his son would be killed.

I don't understand your point?

 

[brightfame52]

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.

You dont listen. I already addressed that

 

[Roger316]

It does if Christ is THE (singular) Savior, which He is. Are you familiar with the stipulations of the New Covenant?

I think part of our difference comes from how we’re using the word *reconciliation*. Reconciliation is, by definition, a relational reality — it involves two parties who were estranged being brought back into fellowship. Christ absolutely provides and initiates reconciliation, but does He also perform the *human* side of the relationship for us? If reconciliation requires a restored relationship, how could Christ “agree” on our behalf or “return” to God in our place? That seems to collapse both sides of the process into one. So the real question is: If reconciliation is relational, how could it be fully accomplished without any response from the other party? That’s the assumption I’m not convinced the Bible makes.

 

[brightfame52]

Quote the scripture where David says that his son would be killed.

There doesnt need to be such a quote, just because you framed your mouth to ask that specific question. David knew like all te OT Saints that their salvation and forgiveness lay in the coming seed of the woman, the Messiah, and I ve shown you enough scripture for that, and you dont listen. In fact, if there was a quote that says :his son would be killed." you wouldn't believe it, you would just explain it away, because you cat believe it

 

[rogerg]

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.

According to the KJV, Col 2:14 is referring to the ordinances, the nailing of them to the cross. If the ordinances were taken out of the way, then the sin levied because of them became eliminated: if cause is removed, then no longer is there any effect (sin) resulting from it. I think the "certificate of debt" you quoted, is actually the ordinances.

[Col 2:14 KJV] 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 

[Roger316]

I don't understand your point?

During our discussion, @Brightframe52 claimed that OT saints knew that the Messiah would die on a cross to pay for their sins. And therefore forgiveness has always depended on Christ's death on the cross. I reminded him of Paul's clear statement that the OT saints knew nothing of Christ's death. The cross was a mystery, in Paul's words.

I think part of the confusion here comes from assuming that Old Testament believers already knew the details of Christ’s death and consciously trusted in a crucified Messiah. But Paul is explicit that the meaning of the cross was a **mystery hidden** in previous ages and only revealed “now” through the gospel. OT saints trusted God’s mercy, but they did not know about a Roman crucifixion centuries in the future. So when we say their forgiveness depended on Christ, we mean that God later grounded their forgiveness in Christ’s work — not that they themselves understood or anticipated it. This is why we need to be careful not to read our atonement theories back into texts like Psalm 32; David is celebrating forgiveness, not articulating a payment‑model centuries before the cross was revealed.

 

[rogerg]

I think part of our difference comes from how we’re using the word *reconciliation*. Reconciliation is, by definition, a relational reality — it involves two parties who were estranged being brought back into fellowship. Christ absolutely provides and initiates reconciliation, but does He also perform the *human* side of the relationship for us? If reconciliation requires a restored relationship, how could Christ “agree” on our behalf or “return” to God in our place? That seems to collapse both sides of the process into one. So the real question is: If reconciliation is relational, how could it be fully accomplished without any response from the other party? That’s the assumption I’m not convinced the Bible makes.

Nothing, nada, whatsoever is required nor is even permitted for anything from anyone whom God places under the New Covenant: the elect. God satisfied it all on their behalf. That is what makes salvation by God's grace alone through Jesus Christ, the Savior.

 

[Roger316]

There doesnt need to be such a quote, just because you framed your mouth to ask that specific question. David knew like all te OT Saints that their salvation and forgiveness lay in the coming seed of the woman, the Messiah, and I ve shown you enough scripture for that, and you dont listen. In fact, if there was a quote that says :his son would be killed." you wouldn't believe it, you would just explain it away, because you cat believe it

You make assertions that you can't demonstrate. Where in Psalm 32 does David mention a coming seed? He explicitly says that God forgave him BECAUSE he had an honest and contrite heart. And Paul quotes this passage in Romans 4, where he makes the same point.

 

[Roger316]

You dont listen. I already addressed that

Address it again. Why do you think, contrary to the meaning of the word, that "whitewash" means "payment" after I showed you what the Greek word means?

 

[brightfame52]

You make assertions that you can't demonstrate.

You reject everything that demonstrates, thats been your forte

 

[brightfame52]

Address it again.

I wish I would, you better go back and read

 

[rogerg]

During our discussion, @Brightframe52 claimed that OT saints knew that the Messiah would die on a cross to pay for their sins. And therefore forgiveness has always depended on Christ's death on the cross. I reminded him of Paul's clear statement that the OT saints knew nothing of Christ's death. The cross was a mystery, in Paul's words.

I think part of the confusion here comes from assuming that Old Testament believers already knew the details of Christ’s death and consciously trusted in a crucified Messiah. But Paul is explicit that the meaning of the cross was a **mystery hidden** in previous ages and only revealed “now” through the gospel. OT saints trusted God’s mercy, but they did not know about a Roman crucifixion centuries in the future. So when we say their forgiveness depended on Christ, we mean that God later grounded their forgiveness in Christ’s work — not that they themselves understood or anticipated it. This is why we need to be careful not to read our atonement theories back into texts like Psalm 32; David is celebrating forgiveness, not articulating a payment‑model centuries before the cross was revealed.

[Job 19:25 KJV] 25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:

 

[Roger316]

There doesnt need to be such a quote, just because you framed your mouth to ask that specific question. David knew like all te OT Saints that their salvation and forgiveness lay in the coming seed of the woman, the Messiah, and I ve shown you enough scripture for that, and you dont listen. In fact, if there was a quote that says :his son would be killed." you wouldn't believe it, you would just explain it away, because you cat believe it

The scriptures reveal that the blessing would come through a son of Eve. I agree. But it is silent on the idea that the suffering servant and the triumphal servant would be the same person. And Paul explicitly tells us that the death of Jesus on a cross was a mystery, hidden until now. And nothing in the OT or the NT suggests that our debt to sin is paid rather than canceled.

 

[rogerg]

And nothing in the OT or the NT suggests that our debt to sin is paid rather than canceled.

[Heb 1:3 KJV] 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

[Roger316]

According to the KJV, Col 2:14 is referring to the ordinances, the nailing of them to the cross. If the ordinances were taken out of the way, then the sin levied because of them became eliminated: if cause is removed, then no longer is there any effect (sin) resulting from it. I think the "certificate of debt" you quoted, is actually the ordinances.

[Col 2:14 KJV] 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The point is: they were blotted out.

Think of it this way. Suppose there was a sheet of paper that said, "Roger316 is to be punished for his sins." If Jesus paid for my sins, then it would also say, "This debt has been paid." The sin is remembered but the sin has been punished.

But Paul argues that God took a bottle of "whiteout" and erased the accusation against me. This isn't an act of payment; it is an act of forgiveness. Since God used whiteout on the accusatory statement, the sin is no longer remembered; the sin has been forgiven and forgotten.

 

[rogerg]

The point is: they were blotted out.

Think of it this way. Suppose there was a sheet of paper that said, "Roger316 is to be punished for his sins." If Jesus paid for my sins, then it would also say, "This debt has been paid." The sin is remembered but the sin has been punished.

But Paul argues that God took a bottle of "whiteout" and erased the accusation against me. This isn't an act of payment; it is an act of forgiveness. Since God used whiteout on the accusatory statement, the sin is no longer remembered; the sin has been forgiven and forgotten.

I think that "purged", means eliminated, removed, not covered over or whitewashed.

[Heb 1:3 KJV] 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

[brightfame52]

During our discussion, @Brightframe52 claimed that OT saints knew that the Messiah would die on a cross to pay for their sins. And therefore forgiveness has always depended on Christ's death on the cross. I reminded him of Paul's clear statement that the OT saints knew nothing of Christ's death. The cross was a mystery, in Paul's words.

I think part of the confusion here comes from assuming that Old Testament believers already knew the details of Christ’s death and consciously trusted in a crucified Messiah. But Paul is explicit that the meaning of the cross was a **mystery hidden** in previous ages and only revealed “now” through the gospel. OT saints trusted God’s mercy, but they did not know about a Roman crucifixion centuries in the future. So when we say their forgiveness depended on Christ, we mean that God later grounded their forgiveness in Christ’s work — not that they themselves understood or anticipated it. This is why we need to be careful not to read our atonement theories back into texts like Psalm 32; David is celebrating forgiveness, not articulating a payment‑model centuries before the cross was revealed.

So what was Isaiah thinking about Isa 53:5

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Cp to Peters 2 Pet 2:24

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Now the word wounded/ ḥālal in Isa 53:5 can be translated pierce

"He was pierced for our transgressions" (Isaiah 53:5): Crucifixion is a unique form of execution specifically defined by piercing the body (pinning the hands and feet with nails, and later a spear to the side). Traditional Jewish executions of Isaiah's era relied primarily on stoning or decapitation—not piercing AI

 

[Roger316]

Nothing, nada, whatsoever is required nor is even permitted for anything from anyone whom God places under the New Covenant: the elect. God satisfied it all on their behalf. That is what makes salvation by God's grace alone through Jesus Christ, the Savior.

I understand that. I do. We both agree that I can do nothing to assure my salvation. But is it so unlikely that I might want to say "Thankyou"? Am I adding to my salvation by thanking God for what Jesus did for me?

(I know you're not saying this, but please follow me.}

God provides the means by which God and I can be reconciled. And there is nothing that I can add or need to add in order to make that happen. But it is not adding to Christ's work for me to repent in response to that. My repentance isn't a necessary condition for my salvation. Rather, my repentance is an anticipated response to my reconciliation with God.

What I mean is this: while it’s true that God does everything and I add nothing to the *basis* of my reconciliation with Him, my repentance is the outward evidence that reconciliation has actually occurred. The apostles expect me to thank God for my salvation, not because gratitude contributes to it, but because gratitude expresses it. In the same way, they expect me to repent in light of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Repentance is not my contribution to salvation any more than thankfulness is — it is simply the external expression of an internal reality, the lived sign that I have embraced the reconciliation God has already provided.

 

[Roger316]

[Heb 1:3 KJV] 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Good question.

When Hebrews 1 says that the Son “purged our sins,” the word means to cleanse by removing, not to pay or to endure a penalty. The author uses katharismos, the same family of words used for cleansing the temple or purifying a worshiper — the emphasis is on removal, not transaction. The point is that Christ, by offering Himself in perfect obedience, has taken away the defilement that kept humanity from God. He doesn’t pay off a debt in Hebrews 1; He performs the priestly act of cleansing, restoring access to God by removing what stood between us and Him.

 

[Roger316]

I think that "purged", means eliminated, removed, not covered over or whitewashed.

[Heb 1:3 KJV] 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

I didn't see this post before I answered the other one. I agree with you. Purged means eliminated or removed.

Think of it this way: before us stands a great temple with a massive door, and behind that door is the presence of God. The problem is not that God is unwilling to receive us, but that our sins function like a lock — they keep the door shut because they make us unfit to enter. What Paul and Hebrews both say is that the cross removed the barrier, not by paying off a creditor but by cleansing away what kept us outside. Christ didn’t force the door open; He took away the very thing that kept it closed, giving us real access to God.