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
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:

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

How is that discoun what I said?
Quote:
You're either trying to make me look bad or you don't like that part?

Niether.

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

Knowledg of what?

 2009/9/28 10:12Profile









 Re:

Someone recently told me:

1. There is no govermental need for an atonement
2. The Bible does not teach any type of moral influence from the atonement
3. The atonement is not a substitution
4. The Early Church did not teach any governmental necessity

All four of these statements are wrong. This was my answer to him:

1. If there is no governmental need to substitute our penalty with the atonement, then there is no govermental need of penalty at all. If penalty can be remitted without a substitute, then the penalty is simply not necessary and serves no necessary purpose. But God does execute penalties upon the wicked, which mean that penalties must serve a necessary purpose. And if they serve a purpose under God's government, how can they be remitted unless those purposes are fulfilled through an alternative means?

2. The Bible does teach the moral influence of the atonement. It says we love Him because He first loved us and His lovingkindness leads us to repentance. It says that we are born again by the hearing of the Gospel. When men hear how Jesus Christ died for them, as their substitute (the just for the unjust) this subdues their hearts and brings them to repentance.

3. The innocent (Christ) died so that the guilty (sinners) might live. This is substitution. There had to have been a necessity for this substitution. Jesus said he shed his blood for the remission of sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. Remission is to remit penalty. If our penalty can be remitted because of the atonement, then the atonement must fulfill the purpose of our penalty. Otherwise there would be no connection at all with the shedding of blood and the remission of penalty.

4. And this is a quote from the Early Church on the governmental necessity of the atonement: “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?” Gregory of Nazianzus (yr 330-390)

 2009/9/28 13:48









 Re:

There are serious problems with the idea that Jesus paid our debt! Think about it!

If you owe a person $100 and I pay your debt for you, without you knowing it, your debt is still paid. You don't have to believe in order for your debt to be paid. Likewise if Jesus paid our debt, we are saved whether we have faith or not. The Universalist says that Jesus paid the debt of everyone, therefore everyone is saved, "they just don't know it yet". You are saved because your debt is paid and your debt is paid even if you "don't know it yet". This is a serious problem for the payment theory! The Bible clearly says that we must repent and believe in order to be saved from God's wrath.

Also, we are to pray for God to forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. But if our debt is paid, God cannot forgive us our debt. You cannot forgive a debt that has been paid! If Jesus paid our debt, Jesus made forgiveness impossible! There is no mercy or forgiveness in salvation if Jesus paid our debt. Therefore we cannot pray "forgive us our debts" and therefore we cannot obey Jesus who told us to pray this!

And if God only forgives debts that have been paid, does that mean that if a person owes me money and they ask for forgiveness I can say, "Sure I'll forgive your debt, as soon as you pay it. Now give me what you owe, or have someone else pay it.". What kind of forgiveness is that?!? To forgive a debt means that the payment of the debt is no longer demanded or required! Study Matthew 18 about the unforgiving servant. Is the God of your theology the Ruler who pardoned the unpaid debt, or is your God like the unforgiving servant who demanded that the debt be paid? Remember, Jesus condemned the unforgiving servant. We are supposed to forgive our debtors, not to demand payment.

“When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy.” [b]Albert Barnes [/b]

“…when the debt is paid, or the purchase made, it is the part of equity to cancel the bond, and consign over the purchased possession.” [b]John Wesley[/b]

“If the atonement of Christ be considered as the payment of a debt, the release of the sinner seems not to be an act of grace, although the payment be made by Christ, and not by the sinner personally. Suppose any one of you, my auditors, owes a certain sum; he goes and pays the full sum himself personally. Doubtless all will agree, that the creditor, in this case, when he gives up the obligation, performs a mere act of justice, in which there is no grace at all….this…places the whole grace of the gospel in providing the Savior, not in the pardon of sin.” [b]Jonathon Edwards Jr.[/b]

“If Christ have, in the proper sense of the words, paid the debt which we owed to God, whether by a delegation from us or not; there can be no more grace in our discharge, than if we had paid it ourselves. But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us…Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself…Grace is ever so opposed to justice, that they mutually limit each other. Wherever grace begins, justice ends; and wherever justice begins, grace ends.” [b]Jonathon Edwards Jr. [/b]

“If, in the obligation of an absolute retributive justice the Father must inflict merited punishment upon sin and if in the atonement he inflicted such punishment upon his Son as the substitute for sinners-then he does not remit the penalty. No dialectics can identify such an infliction with remission. And where there is no remission of penalty there can be no grace of forgiveness. Hence, the doctrine of Satisfaction does not admit the grace of the Father in forgiveness; which fact of grace, however, is clearly given in the Scriptures.” [b]John Miley [/b]

“That if, as their substitute, Christ suffered for them the full amount deserved by them, then justice has no claim upon them, since their debt is fully paid by the surety, and of course the principal is, in justice, discharged. And since it is undeniable that the atonement was made for the whole posterity of Adam, it must follow that the salvation of all men is secured upon the ground of ‘exact justice.” [b]Charles Finney[/b]

“The atonement does not signify the payment of a debt, in the sense that would represent the world, in their unredeemed condition, as insolvent debtors, and God as a creditor. This view destroys the gracious character of salvation, and reduces it to a transaction of sheer justice. If the sinner simply owed a debt to Heaven, which Christ fully discharged for him, then his release from all liability to punishment and his introduction into heaven might be demanded on the ground of equitable and inalienable right…” [b]Asbury Lowrey [/b]

 2009/9/29 0:24
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
There are serious problems with the idea that Jesus paid our debt! Think about it!



Really? What does it mean to ransom someone then?

I think that too much of this has overlooked the many facets of the Cross and what it accomplished.

The focus has been on "atonement" while overlooking terms like propitiation, ransom, justification, reconciliation, and the term redemption as well.

One cannot talk of the Cross without mentioning ALL of the things it accomplished.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/9/29 0:49Profile
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

truefaithsav said:

Quote:
There are serious problems with the idea that Jesus paid our debt! Think about it!


Honestly, I think there is too much word play, too much analyzing and rationalizing going on in this thread.

The gospel is beautifully simple:

Jn 3:16 [color=CC3300]“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."[/color]

I see no need to dissect God's grace.

 2009/9/29 1:02Profile









 Re:

Yes there are serious problems with the idea of paying a debt (which is different then paying a ransom). Read the rest of my posts and you'll see the serious problems of viewing the atonement as a commerical transaction where God is a Creditor. This would exclude any "mercy" or "forgiveness" or "remission". These words are without meaning at all if our debt has been paid.

That is why Calvinists, Arminians, and even Pelagians have rejected the payment view. Calvinists (like Jonathon Edwards Jr) Wesleyan Arminians (like John Miley) and semi-Pelagians (like Finney) have rejected the payment view. They all taught the governmental view. At leat there is one doctrine that transcends the Calvinist/Arminian debate!

What is the forgiveness of sins and why does forgiveness require an atonement? I do not see how those who hold to the payment view can properly answer these two questions. And please define the remission of sins.

 2009/9/29 1:04









 Re:

Leo_Grace,

God says come and let us reason together. God gave us an intelligence and He wants us to use it! Salvation is the renewing of your mind, not the removal of your mind!

The atonement is the greatest truth that we can ever think about! We ought to think about it! It is the most reasonable and sensable doctrine in all of Christianity! You should fear any atonement view that fears reason!

 2009/9/29 1:08
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
What is the forgiveness of sins and why does forgiveness require an atonement? I do not see how those who hold to the payment view can properly answer these two questions. And please define the remission of sins.



If you can, look up the words I provided in my previous post, and how they are used in Scripture, and I think you will get a bigger picture of the Cross.

If you can, I would highly recommend a wonderful book called "The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross" by Leon Morris. It deals with the Greek words used by the NT writers and how those words would have been understood then in both the Greek culture and in the NT writers thoughts.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/9/29 1:18Profile









 Re:

Here are my definitions:

Forgiveness: the setting aside of punishment
Remission: to remit penalty
Atonement: that which makes pardon, forgivenes, or remission possible
propitiation: satisfaction, not of God's wrath (since God still has wrath after the atonement)but of public justice (the purpose of penalty)
ransom/redeem: a price paid to bring someone back
justification: to pardon and accept back into favor
reconciliation: to unite two parties previously conflicting

Jesus paid the price of His life to make an atonement for us, to bring us back to God (redeem, ransom). His atonement is a substitute for our penalty which accomplishes what our penalty would have accomplished (public justice). Now that public justice has been propitiated or satisfied, our penalty can be remitted (remission) which means our punishment can be set aside (forgiveness). The revelation of the atonement brings us to repentance. The atonement makes it possible for our penalty to be withheld while also bring us to repentance, thus making reconciliation. When we repent and believe, God turns from His wrath, He pardons us, He treats us as if we had never sinned, He accepts us into favor (justification).

This is really good stuff:

Quote:
If you owe a person $100 and I pay your debt for you, without you knowing it, your debt is still paid. You don't have to believe in order for your debt to be paid. Likewise if Jesus paid our debt, we are saved whether we have faith or not. The Universalist says that Jesus paid the debt of everyone, therefore everyone is saved, "they just don't know it yet". You are saved because your debt is paid and your debt is paid even if you "don't know it yet". This is a serious problem for the payment theory! The Bible clearly says that we must repent and believe in order to be saved from God's wrath.

Also, we are to pray for God to forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. But if our debt is paid, God cannot forgive us our debt. You cannot forgive a debt that has been paid! If Jesus paid our debt, Jesus made forgiveness impossible! There is no mercy or forgiveness in salvation if Jesus paid our debt. Therefore we cannot pray "forgive us our debts" and therefore we cannot obey Jesus who told us to pray this!

And if God only forgives debts that have been paid, does that mean that if a person owes me money and they ask for forgiveness I can say, "Sure I'll forgive your debt, as soon as you pay it. Now give me what you owe, or have someone else pay it.". What kind of forgiveness is that?!? To forgive a debt means that the payment of the debt is no longer demanded or required! Study Matthew 18 about the unforgiving servant. Is the God of your theology the Ruler who pardoned the unpaid debt, or is your God like the unforgiving servant who demanded that the debt be paid? Remember, Jesus condemned the unforgiving servant. We are supposed to forgive our debtors, not to demand payment.

 2009/9/29 1:26
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
Now that public justice has been propitiated



Agree with everything you said, except for this part.

But I want to make sure I'm not jumping to conclusions, so let me just say that it was God who was propitiated, as the term means "wrath atoning sacrifice". So it was God's justice that was propitiated, so He might be just and the justifier.

I think that's what you meant?


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/9/29 1:34Profile





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