How about a dicussion of the verious theorties on the Atonement

_________________
Tony Phillips

Would you like to start the listing?

_________________
Ron Bailey

Why is it that nearly every church in America holds to a Catholic theory of the Atonement? Does anyone know where someone teaches a classical or governmental theory?

It seems universal that people are holding to the idea that in Salvation, God the Father required Jesus to literally pay for the sins of the world.

Then in the same breath they say that we need forgiveness!

A few add that we also need to repent!

All attribute salvation to "grace"???

What is going on?

_________________
Tony Phillips

I look at it like this:

Imagine you are in a court of law:

You have been charged with sinning against God.

This is punishable by death.

God sent His Son to pay for all the sins ever committed and ever to be committed.

We then have many human responses to this, e.g.:

1. "I do not believe I have sinned and therefore do not need Christ to pay for my 'sins'" - Result - You have to pay for your sins yourself, i.e. with death.

2. "I believe I have sinned and need Christ to enable me to do works of grace to be Justified before God" - Result - you are saying that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient to pay for your sins, you therefore want to pay for them yourself, i.e. with death.

3. "I believe I have sinned and I put all my trust in Christ to pay for my sins" - Result - Justification / atonement etc.


In regards to repentance, to be able to turn to the Lord Jesus Christ and to put all your trust in Him alone you have to turn from your sin (No one can serve two masters - Matthew 6:24), this comes about from the sorrow you feel towards your Sin (Godly sorrow - 2 Corinthians 7:9-10) and it is something that God instigates. A man cannot chose when to repent, he can only chose to repent when God grants it (2 Timothy 2:25).


Remember Jesus was the ransom:

He was the ransom for all:

1 Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

and he was the ransom for many:

Matthew 20:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

This means that His worth is more than enough to pay for every sin ever committed and ever to be committed, but it is only judicially imputed to a person when they believe in Him.

_________________
Mark Nash

Nasher,

First, you said if I don’t accept Christ’ payment for my sins, then I would have to pay for them myself. If they are paid for already, it doesn’t matter what I do. Does God require double payment?

Second, some may believe that Christ’s death was not SUFFICIENT to pay for sins and therefore more grace must be accomplished, however, my question is was the death of Jesus DESIGNED to pay for sin?

Third, nowhere in the Bible does it say that one must “put all my trust in Christ to pay for my sins”

How is it that if Jesus literally paid for sins, that he was able to “pay” for everyone? Who required such payment? Whom did he pay?

Thinking out loud,

_________________
Tony Phillips

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; (ASV)
Rom 3:25 God has appointed him as the means of propitiation, a propitiation accomplished by the shedding of his blood, to be received and made effective in ourselves by faith. (Philips Paraphrase)

Propitiation is the price paid to remove the cause of the offence with a view to reconciliation. Strictly speaking ‘Christ did not pay the price’; He was the price paid. In Romans above, Paul states that God has provided the price for ‘sins done aforetime’ i.e. pre-Calvary sins. (the argument holds good for all post-Calvary sins too) The benefits of this provision are ‘through faith’. They are not imposed by God upon the whole of mankind; this would be an abnegation of God’s own purpose that we must be held responsible for our own choices.

Have you ever noticed the sudden switch in personal pronouns in Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when THOU shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.” It is all ‘He’ and ‘him’ and then suddenly “when THOU shalt make His soul an offering for sin”. Literally, ‘when thou shalt make His soul a trespass-offering’ something is triggered which fulfils the purpose of God.

A brief look at the pattern of the trespass-offering may help.
Lev 6:6,7 And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy estimation, for a trespass-offering, unto the priest:
and the priest shall make atonement for him before Jehovah; and he shall be forgiven concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.

God has provided the trespass-offering, but I must bring Him… Forgiveness, through total dependence on God’s propitiatory sacrifice, is without my contribution but not without my cooperation.

_________________
Ron Bailey

_________________
Ron Halverson

Ron,

Is it true that moral law requires payment? The moral law simply declares what is right and wrong. Justice, both public and private, may need satisfaction in order to uphold the common good. In simpler words the penalty for violation of the moral law is what provides for the safety and security of God’s moral creation.

However, how satisfaction is made is what I am trying to get to the bottom of.

Now it is true that God has said that the “soul that sinneth, it shall surely die”. However, and to our great fortune, God has provided a way by which the “soul that sinneth, it shall surely live”! Hallelujah!

Now, how is this made possible. Was the death of Jesus the “satisfaction” of the justice the penalty of law demanded, or was the death of Jesus a substitution for the penalty itself. Can it be said that Jesus suffered the penalty of the law. What is the penalty of the law, eternal punishment! Did Jesus suffer such punishment. No, of course not.

What is the answer then?

Thinking out loud,

_________________
Tony Phillips

Philologos,

Excellent remarks on the atonement. I agree that “Christ did not pay the price” as you said and that He, in fact is the price!

My concern is that of the literalness of such “price”. We talk about the trespass-offering. A poor family good get by without a lamb, offering a turtle dove, or even a wheat offering. Certainly the offering was to represent the faith we had in God and not in the means by which we were atoned. Nothing can compare with the great sacrifice of the Lord, yet in itself the death of Jesus saves none. But as you said, is forward looking to “a view to reconciliation”. Of course, not to undermine the significance of the death of Jesus, but recognizing its aim and necessity of meeting God’s primary condition of forgiveness, that is, the atonement itself.

Thinking out loud,

_________________
Tony Phillips

Quote: “What is the penalty of the law, eternal punishment! Did Jesus suffer such punishment. No, of course not.”

Finite souls suffer eternal loss for an eternity. The infinite Son of God suffered eternal loss in a moment. It was through the ‘eternal Spirit’ that He offered Himself to God. Calvary is forever. This is what the old hymn means when it says “the blood shall never lose its power”. It is what John saw 60 years after the time/space event when he saw a “lamb, having been slain, standing”. In the Spirit, Calvary is now. Eternal is not a measurement of time, but an adjective of quality. The main point about eternal life is not that it is quantitively better, but qualitatively so. Yes, He spent an eternity on that cross, and was separated for an eternity as He bore our sin/s.

_________________
Ron Bailey