SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Governmental Atonement Illustrated: King Zalukas

Print Thread (PDF)

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



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

If it is created by God, then it is something that is outside of God. If it is an essential part of God then it is God who is satisfied by the atonement, not an external law that should be upheld. Does that flow logically?


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2009/9/25 18:49Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:

truefaithsav wrote:
Atonement + nothing = no salvation: we must repent and believe

Atonement + faith = no salvation: we must also repent.

Atonement + repentance + faith = salvation.

You can't serperate repentance from faith as you are doing.
True faith implys repentance. faith w/out repentence is not faith at all.

Or, are you putting that this way as to not have people discount repentenc?

 2009/9/26 11:34Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
PreachParsly wrote:
If it is created by God, then it is something that is outside of God. If it is an essential part of God then it is God who is satisfied by the atonement, not an external law that should be upheld. Does that flow logically?

It is an essential part of God.

The law is not founded in mere randomness, but in the Personhood of God, it is a representation of who He is and a part of the foundation of reality.
God did not create the law, it is only a reflection of Him. Therefore, it is God who is placated by the atonement, however, the law still must be upheld and satisfide by justice when transgressed.

 2009/9/26 11:48Profile









 Re:

Moral law is not a "thing" or a "substance" to be created. Moral law is an idea of the mind. God has a conscience. His intelligence tells Him how people should be treated, according to their intrinsic value. He is supremely valuable and therefore should be loved supremely. Our neighbor is equally valuable to ourselves and therefore should be loved equally. The moral law of God originated in the mind of God, not in the arbitrary will of God.

The moral law, strictly speaking, only requires the death of the guilty. "The soul that sins, it shall die". That is retributive justice. Retributive justice is treating everyone as they deserve. In the atonement Christ the innocent died. He didn't deserve to die. Therefore his death did not satisfy retributive justice. Through the atonement we live. We are guilty. Therefore the atonement does not satisfy retributive justice.

But the object of penalty is public justice. The purpose of punishment is to discourage crime. The object or purpose of penalty, which is public justice, was definitely satisfied by the atonement. God's regard for the public order of His universe is satisfied through the atonement as it would have been by the penalty executed upon sinners. God is the Lord of hosts. He is the ruler over many moral beings. If he is going to set aside the punishment of mankind, He must substitute our punishment with an atonement in order to maintain His law throughout all of His Kingdom. If He simply forgave by His grace and mercy, without an atonement, the purpose of the penalty of the law would not have been satisfied, crime would be encouraged instead of discouraged.

Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. To repent is to change your mind about breaking God's law. Faith is to put your trust in God and His atonement. When we truly turn to God, we turn to God in repentance and faith. Once that occurs, God remits our penalty of eternal hell.

I think definitions really help:

[b]The penalty of the law[/b]: the eternal hell of the guilty (not physical death or else even Christians aren't saved; and not the death of the innocent) See Eze. 18:20; 2 Thes. 1:9

[b]The object of penalty[/b]: to discourage crime (not to satisfy any vindictiveness in God, since God does not delight in the death of the wicked) See 2 Peter 2:6

[b]Forgiveness or mercy[/b]: the setting aside or remission of penalty (it is not the payment of a debt, the satisfaction of wrath, or the execution of penalty. These are the opposite of forgiveness or mercy)See Ps 78:38, Ps 85:23, Micah 7:18; Matt 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42

[b]Problem of forgiveness[/b]: it encourages crime (it is not that God was unwilling, unforgiving, or unmerciful) See Ecc. 8:11, Eze. 18:32

[b]Atonement[/b]: a substitute for the penalty (not the penalty itself) which makes our penalty remissable. See Matt. 26:28; Heb 9:22

[b]Necessity of atonement[/b]: to fulfill or satisfy the purpose of penalty (public justice), to make it safe for God to pardon criminals without endangering the rest of His subjects by encouraging others to break His law. God must maintain His law throughout His universe by expressing His regard for it, either by punishing the guilty or through the atonement of Christ. (Not that God needed any personal satisfaction, but that God had a governmental problem - the purpose of penalty needed satisfaction). See Romans 3:25-26

 2009/9/27 0:44









 Re:

I found these quotes on the atonement and really liked them:

“The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose. In other words, there are certain ends proposed by the appointment of the penalty in case of violation of the law; and if these ends are secured, then the punishment may be remitted and the offender may be pardoned. That which will secure these ends is an atonement.” [b]Albert Barnes[/b]

“The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law. That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon.” [b]Jonathon Edwards Jr.[/b]

"the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners" [b]Charles Finney[/b]

"The idea that penal justice must, always be done, in the sense that the penalty of the law must always be inflicted, would exclude the possibility of pardon and of atonement." [b]John Morgan[/b]

"Under his violated law a sinning race was justly doomed to perdition. Some expression must needs go forth to sustain the sacredness and majesty of that law, so that pardon could be offered and given with no periol to his moral kingdom." [b]Henry Cowles[/b]

"The death of Christ is not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty. THe necessity of an atonement is not found in the fact that the justice of God required an invariable execution of the deserved penalty, but in the fact that the honor and glory of God, and the welfare of his creatures, required that his essential and recortial righteousness be adequately declared." [b]Dr. Raymond[/b]

"The sufferings of Christ, as a proper substitute for punishment, must fulfill the office of penalty in the obligatory ends of oral government." [b]John Miley[/b]

"But should this penalty be set aside, and no substitute, as it respects the divine governments be itnrudced, the authority of law is prostrated at once." [b]Nathan Beman[/b]

"To say then that Christ made an expiatory offering for us, according to my apprehension of the meaning of scriptural language, implies that his sufferings and death were, by divine appointment, accepted instead of the punishment due to us as sinners, and that God, in consequence of the offering made by Christ, pardons our offences and restores us to his favour." [b]Moses Stuart[/b]

“It [the atonement] provides a substitute for the penalty of the law”. [b]Winkie Pratney[/b]

“The Divine law has been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore, its penalty must be endured by the transgressor, or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as to render it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.” [b]Catherine Booth [/b]

"But if God pardoned sinners without an atonement, he could neither have supported his law, discounteanced wickedness, nor manifested his abhorrence of sin, and love of holiness. Hence if sinners were pardoned, an atonement was indispensably necessary." [b]Caleb Burge[/b]

 2009/9/27 1:13









 Re:

If the atonement was the payment of our debt, or a satisfaction of God's wrath:

1. Those Jesus died for would be born saved

2. You'd have to believe in limited atonement or universalism

3. You do not need to repent or believe to be saved

4. Your debt is paid and God has no wrath for you, even if you don't know it

5. There is no forgiveness or mercy in salvation

These are some serious problems!

God still has wrath after the atonement (Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 2:5; Rom. 2:8-9; Col. 3:6; Rev. 6:17; Rev. 14:10, Rev. 14:19, Rev. 15:7; Rev. 16:1) and therefore the atonement did not satisfy God’s wrath.

Nobody is saved from God’s wrath until they forsake their sins (Isaiah 55:7; Jer. 26:13; Prov. 28:13; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22).

The atonement is a substitute for our penalty (Heb. 9:22), so that God could remit our penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25) without dishonoring or weakening His law.

Forgiveness is the remission of penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22). Forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 85:2-3; Micah 7:18). But if Jesus took our penalty and satisfied God’s wrath, there could be no real forgiveness. The atonement makes it possible for our penalty to be remitted, it makes it possible for God to turn away from His wrath when sinners repent.

Now that an atonement has been made, God can remit our penalty, withhold our punishment, and turn from His wrath. Jesus has delivered us from the wrath that is to come (1 Thes. 1:10). The wrath is still there. The wrath is still coming. But we are delivered from it. Because of the passover lamb, God's wrath can pass over us instead of being poured out upon us (1 Cor. 5:7).

 2009/9/27 15:53
ceedub
Member



Joined: 2009/5/1
Posts: 215
Canada

 Re:

It seems all believe in limited atonement save the universalists. Some believe the atonement is limited in its scope, some in its power. Both sides believe it is limited to those who believe.

It would be difficult to believe that Jesus did the exact same thing for those that are in heaven as in hell.

Can the man in heaven say to God the Father,
'Did Jesus bear all my sins and iniquities?'
Yes
'Did Jesus accomplish what he came to do?'
Yes
Did he die in my place?
Yes
Did he save his people from their sins?
Yes
Was it nothing but the blood that procured my salvation?
Yes
Was His work finished at the cross?
Yes
Did he die to take away all my sin, even unbelief?
Yes
Did he then give the gifts of faith and repentance to His people?
Yes
Did he give his life for his people, for his church?
Yes
Did God do all these things for those that are in hell?...



Eph 5:25


If Jesus did for those in hell what he did for those in heaven and there is no difference as far as what Jesus did, then the difference between heaven and hell lies only in what man does. If that is true, how can all the glory be God's when his saving attempts left many in hell?
If that is true, what of Is 42 that says he will not fail? What will be the response of those in heaven that are asked who made the difference to get you here?

I know myself. We are all prone to wander, Lord we feel it, prone to leave the God we love. It is God who has taken and sealed us for His courts above. Alpha and Omega. Start to finish.

To God be the glory.

 2009/9/27 21:28Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
ceedub wrote:

If Jesus did for those in hell what he did for those in heaven and there is no difference as far as what Jesus did, then the difference between heaven and hell lies only in what man does. If that is true, how can all the glory be God's when his saving attempts left many in hell?

It is because those who are saved are the only ones who choose to obey the command to repent as proof of their faith, while those who are not saved, chose not to.
That is how all the glory be God's.

There is no glory in saving those who do not choose to obey the command to repent as proof of their faith when that is why they are condemned.

Quote:
We are all prone to wander, Lord we feel it, prone to leave the God we love.

That is like saying, "I'm prone to wander from my wife and leave her." I am not prone to wander from God, whom I love.

 2009/9/27 23:03Profile
ceedub
Member



Joined: 2009/5/1
Posts: 215
Canada

 Re:

It seems you left out the part where I said God is the one who seals us and keeps us for His courts above.

You're either trying to make me look bad or you don't like that part?

Logic, it's great you strive, but do you do it according to knowledge?

 2009/9/28 1:04Profile









 Re:

What is the forgiveness of sins and why does it require an atonement?

There are only three atonement views:

Ransom Theory
Governmental Theory
Penal Theory

The ransom theory can tell you what forgiveness is, but it cannot tell you why atonement is necessary for forgiveness. A ransom was paid to the devil, but it is God who forgives us. So the ransom was not necessary for God's forgiveness, but was necessary for being released from the captivity of the devil.

The penal theory never defines forgiveness and it's view of the atonement excludes any real forgiveness. Sins are never actually forgiven, they are always punished. So the atonement was not necessary for forgiveness, but the atonement made forgiveness impossible. All sins are punished, no sins are forgiven. All debts are paid, no debts are pardoned. All penalty is executed, no penalty is remitted. The atonement is the opposite of forgiveness.

The governmental theory defines it very simply. Forgiveness of sins is when God remits the penalty of our sins. Forgiveness is the remission of penalty. Atonement is necessary for forgiveness in order to satisfy the purpose of penalty, in order to overcome the problems of forgiveness, so that the penalty of the law can be wisely and safely remitted. An atonement is necessary to substitute our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted. The atonement of Christ must accomplish what the penalty of the law being executed upon sinners would have accomplished, otherwise the penalty of the law has to be executed upon sinners. But if the atonement of Christ does what the penalty of the law upon the guilty would have done, then the penalty can be remitted (forgiveness).

Again let me ask what is the forgiveness of sins? And why is an atonement necessary for God to forgive our sins?

 2009/9/28 2:59





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