SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Misunderstood Cross - Paul Washer

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

IWantAnguish said:

Quote:
Regardless, I believe we are treading on dangerous ground if we believe that we can make absolute pronouncements about how God 'works'; as if He was some sort of machine...


Amen to that. God is not something to be dissected as if you could understand His ways. Stand in awe of Him.

 2009/10/20 0:36Profile
tjservant
Member



Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA

 Re:

Not a reply. Just adding to thread.



The Governmental Theory

i. This view was devised by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) during the Arminian controversy in Holland

ii. The view:

1. It stated that God Himself requires no payment for sin, but that public justice did require some token or display of how much God despises sin.

2. Christ was sacrificed to display to the world what God’s wrath against sin looks like.

3. The atonement accomplished nothing objective on the sinner’s behalf. Redemption therefore is primarily a subjective issue hinging completely on the sinner’s response.

iii. Modern revival of this view

1. Embraced by several New England theologians in the 17th and 18th centuries, including Charles Finney and Albert Barnes

2. Promoted through groups like Youth With A Mission (YWAM) and popular Christian authors and speakers, such as Jed Smock (“Brother Jed”), a well-known campus evangelist, and George Otis (see his message entitled “The Atonement” at http://www.concentric.net/~for1/otisa.htm)

3. Man-centered revivalism is linked with this theory. See Web site www.revivaltheology.com



iv. Major problems with this view

1. Defines salvation in terms of what the sinner must do leading to perfectionism, moralism, or other works-based forms of religion

2. Redefines the significance of the cross: rather than emphasizing what Christ objectively accomplished there, people who hold to this view must define the cross in terms of how it can subjectively change the human heart



III. The True Doctrine of Atonement: Christ’s Death as a Penal Substitution

a. Doctrine of Atonement taught in Scripture

i. Christ’s death was a substitution for sinners

ii. God imputed the guilt of their transgressions to Christ and then punished Him for it

iii. This was a full payment for the price of sins, to satisfy both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sins without compromising His own holy standard

b. This doctrine was an essential part of Christian doctrine from the beginning

i. Anselm of Canterbury focused his efforts to understand this doctrine

1. He wrote Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?)

2. This offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners

ii. Anselm’s work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith

c. Biblical texts that prove this view

i. Isaiah 53

1. vs. 5-6 speaks specifically of the imputation of the sinner’s guilt to Christ

2. vs. 8-9 states that Christ was punished for others’ sins and He Himself was innocent of any wrong doing

3. vs. 10 underscores the fact that it was God who exacted the penalty for sin

4. vs. 11 highlights the principle of substitution, alongside the notion that this is a penal substitution

ii. Other verses that underscore the substitutionary nature of the atonement

1. 2 Corinthians 5:21

2. Galatians 3:13

3. 1 Peter 2:24

4. 1 Peter 3:18

5. 1 John 2:2

d. Scripture teaches that divine justice is perfectly fulfilled in the atoning work of Christ

i. Romans 1:17

ii. 1 John 1:9

iii. He doesn’t merely set aside justice and forgive us out of the sheer abundance of His mercy; He forgives because it is an act of justice to do so (Romans 3:26). [url=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027CDNotes.htm]Source[/url]


_________________
TJ

 2009/10/20 7:21Profile
bible4life
Member



Joined: 2009/1/21
Posts: 1559
Locport, Illinois

 Re:

amen tjservant


_________________
John Beechy

 2009/10/20 12:19Profile









 Re:

I thought this was pretty good:

Historical Opinions as to the
Nature of Christ's Atoning Death*
by Gordon C. Olson
________________________________________

The Apostles and early Church Fathers presented in simplicity the life and atoning death of Christ as the only way of salvation through repentance and faith, and did not concentrate on developing scientific statements on how this takes place. It appears that we can group the theories of the centuries under four main headings:

1. SATISFACTION THEORY: - Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt.

A. Satisfaction to Satan, to whom man had chosen to give allegiance and must be liberated by Christ paying to him the ransom price (common from 3rd to 11th centuries): Irenaeus (130?-202?); Origen (185?-254?); Gregory of Nyssa (335-399; Augustine (354-430); Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

B. Satisfaction to God the Father universally for all mankind, through a sacrificial death of the Divine Logos who had become one with lost humanity: Athanasius (296-373), the great defender of the Deity of Christ. In salvation the goodness of God must act consistent with His truthfulness and honor, which involves the principle of justice. "Christ as man endured death for us, inasmuch as He offered Himself for that purpose to the Father." Man must be freed not only from the penalty of sin, but from sin itself and be quickened into life.

C. Satisfaction to the ethical nature or justice of God, which demands absolute legal vindication: Anselm (1033-1109), said to have written the first scientific treatise on the Atonement, 1098. God rightfully demands honor and supremacy which man has refused to give, and thus has incurred a debt to God which can only be paid by punishment or by some substituted satisfaction. The God-man, Jesus Christ, with austere dignity came into our world and by His immaculate conduct and by His obedience to a gruesome suffering of death acquired merit before God which may be imputed to the believer as a perfect judicial standing.

D. Satisfaction through a mystical union or a sacrificial bearing of the penalty of sin, providing a "relative satisfaction" as distinguished from an absolute strictly l egal satisfaction in the full discharge of guilt, as advocated by Anselm: Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), a pious and influential monk, typical of the majority of theological leaders from Apostolic times up to Anselm and the Reformation, who followed the descriptive statements of the New Testament without pursuing them to ultimate speculative conclusions.

E. Satisfaction to the offended holiness and justice of God through Christ's bearing the full penalty of man's sin in His vicarious death: Luther (1483-1546); Calvin (1509-1564); and early Reformation leaders, who adopted Anselm's principle of strict judicial satisfaction. The entire guilt and punishment that sinners deserve was transferred to Christ, who by His obedience in life and sufferings endured their total penalty so that sin may no longer be imputed or penalty demanded from those for whom He died, or from those who had been elected to be saved from all eternity. "Our sins were transferred to Him by imputation."

F. Satisfaction as above, with greater emphasis in early post-Reformation times upon the active righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer as a perfect positive standing: Lutheran and Reformed (or Calvinistic) Confessions, and the Federal Headship theory developed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and more fully elaborated by Turretin (1623-1687). Under the Covenant of Works, Adam was the federal head of all mankind so his sin and its consequences is legally imputed to all.

This somewhat replaced the organic or natural relationship theory of guilt for Adam's sin advanced by Augustine (354-430). Through the Covenant of Grace, the Lord Jesus is the federal Head of those who are to experience salvation, being appointed to bear the full guilt of their sins (Adamic and personal) in an atoning death viewed as His passive obedience. By His active obedience to the full demands of Divine law, He is said to have fulfilled perfectly man's requirements and imputes His righteousness to believers so that it is legally considered to be theirs Since in the full development of the satisfaction theory, whatever has been accomplished in the Atonement is an exact equivalent of guilt so that salvation proceeds upon the basis of strict judicial justice, in no understandable way can it be general or made for everyone in the same sense, or all will be saved since God will not demand a double payment f or guilt-Christ's and the sinner's. But the sacred Atonement was made for all, with no theological reservations: Jn. 3:16-17; Mk. 16:15-16; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2:3-6; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:1-2. The Lord Jesus as the Son of Man was under obligation to obey for Himself, since He was "born under the law" (Ga. 4:4-5). His obedience could not, therefore, be imputed to anyone, but He was free to give His life in atonement since He "committed no sin."

2. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY: - The Atonement was necessary to solve the problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind.

A. The sufferings of Christ were necessary to the Divine government, rather than to the Divine nature: Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390). "Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He Himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God?" He strongly opposed the idea of a ransom paid to Satan, and could not understand why a ransom should be paid to the Father. He could only fall back on the "economy" of God and put forth no theory of satisfaction. Other early writers, like Athanasius, also mentioned God's governmental problems.

B. Christ suffered unto death in His human nature, not in His Divine nature, and thus the Atonement was not an infinite value to pay fully for the eternal punishment of sinners, but was graciously accepted by God the Father as sufficient to satisfy Divine justice: Duns Scotus (1265-1308) In line with the majority of Christian thinkers of the centuries, he held the principle that the Atonement provided a "relative satisfaction" to the justice of God and proposed his theory in opposition to Anselm, who had insisted upon absolute total equivalent satisfaction through an infinite sacrifice. He came to view the Divine will as not bound by anything fixed in the Divine nature, but free to decide upon what basis sins could be forgiven.

C. Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, and His grace is extended to all. His atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt, nor is it a complete satisfaction of justice for sin. It is a Divinely-appointed condition which precedes the forgiveness of sin, just as the death of a lamb or a goat in the Mosaic economy. Christ's sufferings took the place of a penalty, so that His sufferings have the same effect in reconciling God to man, and procuring the forgiveness of sin, that the sinner's endurance of the punishment due to his sins would have had. The sufferings of Christ were not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty: Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609); Episcopius (1583-1643); Curcellaeus (1586 1659); Limborch (1633-1712); known as Arminianism. Outside Holland, Arminianism exerted considerable influence in France, Switzerland, Germany, Engl and, and America, and hence throughout the world through various denominations, especially Methodism.

D. God came to be viewed as a benevolent Ruler exercising control over moral beings by good and wise laws designed for mutual happiness of Himself and them. Regulation in a moral government is by means of promised blessings for conformity and penalties of suffering for disobedience. While God in compassionate mercy is willing to forgive or relax His just claims against rebellious moral beings upon evidence of a willingness to cease from rebellion and return to happy submission, He cannot wisely do so without some terrible measure of enlightenment and suffering by a Being of profound dignity. This must demonstrate before all the dreadful nature and consequences of sin and provide an eternal moral force against further indulgence and heart-break to Himself as well as to them: Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a prominent Dutch jurist and Arminian theologian, who wrote an important book against Socinianism, 1617.

E. The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied. The active obedience or holiness of Christ made possible His virtuous death in man's behalf, but is not legally imputed to the believer. Christ's atonement was made for all men in the same sense. It was necessary on God's account to enable Him as a consistent Ruler to fulfill His moral obligations to His subjects, when repentant sinners are pardoned through a commitment of faith (E.A. Park, 1883): New England Theology; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758); his son (1745-1801); Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840); Caleb Burge (1782-1838); N.W. Taylor (1786-1858); C. G. Finney (1792-1875); Congregationalists (very extensively); "New School" Presbyterians; several groups of Baptists; other groups and leaders in America and England (called "American Theology").

In the governmental theory, the Atonement is not required by the subjective nature or vindictive justice of God before mercy is extended. It is not God in isolation as the injured party, but rather God as a benevolent Ruler in relationship to His moral creatures, with great problems of reconciliation that require solution. These problems involve man's relation to God in intelligent moral government, as well as some means to convey God's very deep reactions toward sin and His abounding mercy toward man in spite of man's desperate rebellion. Man must be broken down before God in deep respect and penitence in a return to a right attitude towards God's loving regulation before forgiveness can take place. The sacred advent and atonement of Christ, therefore, is not merely a.measure to discharge guilt by some calculated equivalent. It is the most profound measure conceivable, with an objective to restore a ruptured God-man relationship in all that is involved. The Atonement was, therefore, general in the absolute sense and legally discharged the guilt of no one.

3. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY: - A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place.

The life and sufferings of Christ were conceived to be an exhibition of Divine love to reconcile man back to God by breaking down his resistance and drawing him back into a life of fellowship with God. There is no specific necessity of satisfying the Divine nature or the problems of God's moral government. The life and sufferings of the God-Man were intended to exert a moral impression upon a hard and impenitent heart, which is thereby melted into contrition, and then received into favor by the boundless compassion of God (Abelard): Clement (185?-254?) of Alexandria; Peter Abelard (1079-1142) of France, who opposed Anselm; Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), a lawyer and New England pastor. Many liberals in theology of succeeding generations accepted his general opinions without sharing his deep sincerity.

4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE THEORY: - Sinful man has been misguided and needed a noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living.

If man is going to realize his potential and be reconciled to God, he must repent and reform his ways. For this purpose Jesus Christ was miraculously brought into our world and thus was more than a mere man (Socinianism, 1600's), or was natural born and as a religious genius identified himself with God in special devotion to achieve a unique ministry to mankind (Unitarianism, 1700's). His virtuous and loving conduct in life and in death as a noble martyr showed us how we ought to love God and each other, or become converted and reconciled to God: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), in Poland; Unitarians, who trace their views back through Arius (256-336); and others of humanistic opinion (Christ a mere man).

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

Case 1: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -All are not being saved through it. -Therefore, It could not have been made for all.

Case 2: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -It was made for all. -Therefore, all will be saved through it.

Case 3: -The Atonement was made for all: Is. 53:6; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16-17; 6:51; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2.3-6; Tit. 2:11; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:2; also Is. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Mt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Ro. 2:11; Re. 3:20.

• Only a minority are being saved through it: Ge. 6:5-8; Is. 53:1; Mt. 21:10; Lk. 13:23-24; 23:21; Jn. 5:40; 6:60, 67; 7:7; 16:33; Acts 8:1; 14:22; I Co. 4:13.

• Therefore, it was not a literal or an exact payment for sin.
________________________________________
*Excerpted from his work The Truth Shall Make You Free, © 1980 Bible Research Fellowship, Inc. If you are interested in reading more of Gordon Olson's works, they are available in print form from Revival Theology Promotions.

 2009/10/20 12:19









 Re:

The only reason that God can set aside our penalty of hell, in the forgiveness of sins, is because the atonement of Christ has taken the place of our penalty and has satisfied it's purpose. Now salvation is available to everyone, which they can receive, if they decide to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel.

Quote:
If God prefers mercy over retribution



There is no "if". The Bible says:

- God does not have any vindictiveness or sadistic desire that needs to be gratified or satisfied (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10).

- God is already wanting to forgive (Ps. 86:5)

- He is already willing to pardon (Neh. 9:17), whenever it is safe for all for Him to do so (2 Pet. 3:9).

- God personally prefers mercy over judgment (Isa. 28:21; Micah 7:18; Jn. 8:10-11; Jas. 2:13).

- He is reluctant to execute judgment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Quote:
why wasn't the Father merciful to the Son?



Mercy is when you withhold what a person deserves. Jesus did not deserve the cross. If the Father withheld the cross from the Son, this would not have been mercy, because the son never deserved the cross in the first place. Therefore there was no lack of mercy in the Father allowing the Son to take the cross upon Himself. Jesus even said that no man takes his life, but he lays it down on his own accord. It was his own free will choice.

Retributive justice requires that everyone be treated the way they deserve. Jesus didn't deserve the cross, therefore the cross did not satisfy retributive justice.

Public justice requires that God make a public expression, to all of His moral subjects (men and angels), His regard for His law, so that further crime is prevented. The atonement of Christ manifests God's regard for His law, even greater than the penalty of the law upon sinners would have, and therefore the atonement satisfies public justice in a much greater way then the penalty of the law upon sinners would have.

The death of the innocent can satisfy public justice, but it can never satisfy retributive justice.

Quote:
destroying him with the wrath of a million hells.



Where in the Bible did you ever read that Jesus endured the wrath of a "million hells"?? That sounds more like Paul Washer than the Bible!

Jesus didn't even endure the same amount of pain that ONE sinner in hell would have endured! But Jesus didn't have to. Because of the dignity of His person, and the sinlessness of His character, Jesus could endure a much LESSER amount of pain in a LESSER duration of time, and this is an adequate substitute for the damnation of our ENTIRE planet.

 2009/10/20 12:25
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Thanks for the spam.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/10/20 12:26Profile









 Re:

Yea tjservant, thanks for the spam...

 2009/10/20 12:31
MaryJane
Member



Joined: 2006/7/31
Posts: 3057


 Re:

Greetings
Just wanted to say thanks again for sharing this. I am going to share it now with my boys in this morning devotion time. I also wanted to say thank you for posting the audio link so that I can share it with some family members. This is an awesome teaching that has really caused me to reflect on the love of my Lord that He was willing to endure so much for me when I could never be worthy of such a love on my own.

God Bless
mj

 2009/10/20 12:34Profile









 Re:

Amen tjservant. Washer nails it. It is well worth sharing with anyone who has ears.

 2009/10/20 12:41
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

Quote:

truefaithsav wrote:
I thought this was pretty good:

Historical [b]Opinions[/b] as to the
Nature of Christ's Atoning Death*
by Gordon C. Olson
________________________________________

The Apostles and early Church Fathers presented in simplicity the life and atoning death of Christ as the only way of salvation through repentance and faith, and did not concentrate on developing scientific statements on how this takes place. It appears that we can group the theories of the centuries under four main headings:

1. SATISFACTION [b]THEORY[/b]: - Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt.
.
.
.
2. GOVERNMENTAL [b]THEORY[/b]: - The Atonement was necessary to solve the problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind.
.
.
.
3. MORAL INFLUENCE [b]THEORY[/b]: - A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place.
.
.
.
4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE [b]THEORY[/b]: - Sinful man has been misguided and needed a noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living.
.
.
.


All opinions and theories only. What is important is that God did it, and it works - that's all we need to know. The hows and whys are all conjecture that cannot be truly pinned down by any man. It would be better for us to continue feeding on the Word and to sanctify ourselves through the Spirit, rather than dwell on things that really do not matter.

 2009/10/20 12:54Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy