 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 3/1/2005 11:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Hey all,
A few nights ago I downloaded and listened to Doc's 2/20 message titled "Why Did Jesus Have to Die?" http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_173.htm In this message Doc discusses, in terms easy for everyone to understand, the different views on the nature of the atonement.
I was wondering if anyone would be in for listening to the sermon and discussing some of the issues presented therein. I'm going to relisten and try to posts specific points that Doc makes and questions that I have.
I do remember that Doc says when discussing one of the aspects of his view of the atonement that "he hasn't got the metaphysics of it fully worked out yet." I hope that if the discussion can take off then maybe we can hit on some of the metaphysical foundations of the distinct views of the atonement.
Anyone interested?
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
 |
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 3/2/2005 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | |
From the study guide on the website.
"Today's sermon began with a question: "Why did Jesus have to die?" We all know that Jesus died "to take away the sin of the world." But explaining things further requires us to dive into the various theories of "atonement." These theories put more flesh on the bones of the simple and profoundly true statement that Jesus died for our sins so that we might be reconciled to God. They attempt to describe HOW Christ's dying accomplishes this goal of reconciliation with God (and therefore each other!). Inevitably, these discussions point us to the relationship between God the Father and God the Son."
Allright here are my summary notes of Doc's message. I'll put my comments in red.
Doc gives a summary of the "standard model" of why Christ had to die.
Sinner Joe turned his back on God. This ticks God off, because he is a holy God. God's wrath burns towards sinner Joe. Jesus "steps in" and takes the punishment for sinner Joe, so that God's wrath and holiness are satisfied.
This is a somewhat "strawman" version of the penal substitution view of the atonement.
Consequences of standard model
1) This view makes us thankful for Jesus, but somewhat afraid of the Father. There is a split personality in the Godhead.
2) Sinner sees a "legal loophole", because Jesus already has taken the punishment, so he can live anyway he wants.-- fire insurance
Objections to standard model
1) How can Jesus be punished for what I do? Guilt is not transferrable.
2) Does God really forgive anyone? If the anger is transferred, then there is not true forgiveness.
3) The Bible teaches that "God demonstrates his love for us" in Christ dying for us (Romans 5:8). Jesus says "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." There is no hint of duplicity in the Godhead. John 3:16 does not say "For God was so ticked off at the world that He gave His only begotton Son."
This theory, while capturing some truth, fails to live up.
Doc then develops the idea that Jesus is the Logos, and that Jesus' plan has been eternally for us to have a relationship with the Godhead. God's heart has always been toward us. He supports this with a discussion of God's predestination from the beginning of time for us to be in Christ (Eph 1).
What was not part of the plan was that we would reject God's courtship. In the fall (Doc says better called the rebellion), three problems emerged:
1) we became separated from God by our lack of faith/trust
2) we contracted a fatal "sin disease"-- sin is not just what we do, but who we are
3) we gave ourselves over to bondage to the devil
God's problem is not "who am I going to punish?" The problem is not a LEGAL problem, but a REALITY problem. God wants to correct the reality of our situation.
God's answer-- not only incarnation, but also crucification.
Answer to problem #1
The crucification reveals God and restores our trust in Him. In the fall we believed a lie and therefore we don't go to God for our life. Jesus comes to reveal the heart of God. God's love is a passionate desire for relationship with us. We see the love of the Godhead on Calvary. When we see God's love, our hearts are won over.
This seems to incorporate the "Moral Influence" view of the atonement.
Answer to problem #2
Doc states that "he doesn't have the metaphysics of this worked out", but through Jesus' death on the cross He "absorbs" our sin. Corinthians says that "God made Him to be sin who had no sin."
Analogy : If our kids has cancer, if we had the ability to we would lay hands on them and take the cancer from them. If we were totally loving, then we would do this for everyone who had cancer.
Jesus takes sin upon Him. In doing so he "absorbed God's stance toward the disease (of sin)". Think not in terms of legality but in reality. God hates sin because it destroys us, His hate for sin is the flipside of his love for us. On the cross, God doesn't hate Jesus but He hates the disease that He has absorbed. God not only shows His love for us on the cross, but His hatred of sin.
Romans 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice (righteous stance toward sin--Doc), because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Paul references OT atonement. We must again not understand as legal, but in reality. OT sacrifice was not to appease God's wrath by killing an animal. Life is about having a relationship with God, to be in covenant with Him. God taught through blood sacrifice that to not be in covenant relationship with Him is death. So God justly condemns the covenant breaking, but He does it in Himself.
All of this heals us of the sin disease.
This seems to be a variation of the "moral government view" of the atonement.
Answer to problem #3
The incarnation and crucification frees us from the devil. I John 3 says the reason that Jesus came was to "destroy the work of the Devil." Hebrews 2 says "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil." Somehow, the ultimate act of love that Jesus performs destroys the power of the devil. Again, Doc says that we are not told the details of how this works or the metaphysics of this transaction.
Think of it in this way-- the only power Satan has over us is rooted in a lie (God doesn't love you, you should put yourself in God's place). So when God presents the truth of reality, he destroys the power of the lie. All of Satan's weapons are disarmed in Jesus revealing God's heart.
This is the "Christus Victor" view of the atonement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there is a summary for those who can't listen to the sermon. However, it's only 45 minutes long and it is well worth the listen. Even if you don't interact with Doc's sermon, I would love to hear people's view of the atonement.
I'll post my thoughts/ideas when I get a chance.
Blessings, Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2005 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | My opinion.
I agree that Doc made a "strawman" out of the subsitutionary view. I don't know if he knows this or not...but it seems like he DOES believe in this view. Think about it.
--------------
Person A, by their own fault, gets a terminal disease.
The laws of existence say that a person with a terminal disease WILL die.
The laws of existence also say that the terminal disease, once existing, CANNOT just evaporate or disappear. It's existence must consummate itself in the finality of the death of the host.
Person B decides to, by some mysterious ability, take the terminal disease upon herself.
Person B takes all of Person A's terminal disease...healing Person A.
Person B dies as a result.
The issue is NOT "Who is God going to punish". The issue is "Who is going to DIE with the disease." Instead of the "rightful" person who brought this upon themselves suffering the end result of their choice, another person decides to suffer that end result FOR them...in order to heal them.
How is this NOT substitutionary? Christ dies in our place. Period.
One does not have to think in terms of "PENAL" to think in terms of "SUBSTITUTIONARY", right?
------------
In my view, Doc's view of the atonement is a creative synthesis of ALL the views in one fell swoop. And I don't really see the problem in that. All that said, I DO think Doc needs to deal with the idea of God's wrath "breaking out" against people. I'm thinking of the account of Moses and Zipporah...
Exodus 4:24-26
At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses} and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched {Moses'} feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.)
This definitely NOT the first case of God's wrath having to be appeased somehow. Remember Numbers 16
Numbers 16:41-49
The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. "You have killed the LORD's people," they said.
But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the Tent of Meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the Tent of Meeting, and the LORD said to Moses, 45 "Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once." And they fell facedown.
Then Moses said to Aaron, "Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD ; the plague has started." So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah.Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, for the plague had stopped.
Aaron had to haul some serious a$$, cause God was about to kill him some folk! Wow.
Surely, we have to look at these things when we consider God's wrath and INTERCESSION for that wrath. It would not be a hard stretch to see how someone looking at this could see Jesus and the Father playing the "good cop/bad cop" role. Who could really see Jesus sending a plague on people like this? Neither can many other people. But they could sure see Yahweh doing it.
Personally, I think what counteracts the Father/Jesus false antithesis is to see the ChristWork as the TRINITARIAN WORK that it is. The FATHER sent the SON who was empowered by the SPIRIT. No "good cop/bad cop" here.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/3/2005 2:25:14 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/3/2005 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | We must never forget the Old Testament proclamation: The soul that sins shall die. I think it is painfully obvious that the pronouncement of death upon the soul that sins is for one reason only; the soul has transgressed, in one form or another, against God.
In Genesis, Adam is told that if he eats of the fruit of the tree, he will die. Not a clear-cut proclamation of judgement ("By golly, you're going to die if you disobey ME!"), but a declarative stating the results of an action. The declarations that follow ("Cursed are you...") are not statements of "You'll pay for this." Rather, they are declarations of results following an action. Death follows for the soul that sins, that transgresses. In Adam's case, death follows for the soul that has sought its own way instead of the path God had previously given.
In the cross victory is found through death; love is seen in death; substitution is provided by death and sacrifice is given unto death. In these are many facets of the brilliancy reflected from the same cross. What isn't present is an anger ("I'll get you...") or payment in the penal sense; HOWEVER, there is the reality of Christ having paid something...something that required a death. What can require death but a payment of some sort? Christ has borne upon Himself something we were unable to carry ourselves; the weight an penalty for sins. If Christ has borne this Himself for us, He has paid a price, has He not?
The facets of the cross speak something of payment, of Christ having paid something. If they do not, then the very difficulty of man's dilemma found in passages such as "He that has not the Son, the wrath of God abides on Him" (Jn 3) or those who are "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2) looses all sense of meaning with regard to "The soul that sins shall die". How far can we go in theologizing away any sense of payment if these verses are to have meaning?
Let us not attribute the false penal system to the work of the Christ on the cross, but at the same time let us not toss the baby out with the bathwater by forgetting that a horrible injustice was done, requiring a highly costly act act to make many things right. The wrath of God may not be that of an angry, vengeful God, but neither is the wrath of God a metaphor. God's wrath, indeed, is just that; His wrath, and His wrath with a purpose. It is up to us to articulate an accurate and undiluted theology that reflects both the wrath of God upon the children of this world and the peace of God upon children of His kingdom.
Starkman
Post Edited (Starkman) : 3/3/2005 2:45:42 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/4/2005 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Another opinion? Some of the OT writers did see atonement as appeasement of divine disfavor. It almost seems so obvious as to not need mentioning. Given the idea of progressive revelation...AND our Christocentric orientation...we don't HAVE to see it in exactly the same way. Just a thought.
Hmmm. Precisely which OT writers are you referring to? I've yet to find solid evidence that the penal substitution view is taught anywhere in the Bible, including the OT.
Also, it is true that "substitution" does not have to mean "penal substitution." Christ's death was a substitute FOR the penalty, not the actual penalty (an appeasement of divine wrath/Anselmian concept of propitiation). Contrary to the assertions of the WoF movement, Christ did not suffer in Hell at all (much less ETERNITY in hell, which would be the penalty for just one sin by one person); He only entered Hades to preach deliverance to the captives (OT saints), and to lead them out triumphantly. scripture nowhere indicates that Christ suffered in Hell.
For Christ to have "paid in full" the penalty for sin, He would have had to suffer in Hell for eternity--multiplied times all the sinners that have ever lived.
Also, as has been noted in other discussions recently, God's wrath against sin and sinners is revealed as still present and active in the world after Calvary.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/4/2005 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Starkman said...
In the cross victory is found through death; love is seen in death; substitution is provided by death and sacrifice is given unto death. In these are many facets of the brilliancy reflected from the same cross. What isn't present is an anger ("I'll get you...") or payment in the penal sense; HOWEVER, there is the reality of Christ having paid something...something that required a death. What can require death but a payment of some sort? Christ has borne upon Himself something we were unable to carry ourselves; the weight an penalty for sins. If Christ has borne this Himself for us, He has paid a price, has He not?
The scriptures reveal that He paid a ransom, which anyone can see is a very different thing from a debt. The metaphor of payment of a price for something (i.e., "you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body") is not altogether foreign to us in our culture today. We often speak of a soldier who died in a just cause as having "paid the price," just as we speak of a champion athlete as having "paid the price," through rigorous self-discipline and conditioning/training of his body.
The facets of the cross speak something of payment, of Christ having paid something. If they do not, then the very difficulty of man's dilemma found in passages such as "He that has not the Son, the wrath of God abides on Him" (Jn 3) or those who are "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2) looses all sense of meaning with regard to "The soul that sins shall die". How far can we go in theologizing away any sense of payment if these verses are to have meaning?
Not a problem, if we understand that it was a ransom/redemption price that was paid, not a debt; can we really think that we owe God nothing? As to the excellent verses you cited, they speak of the actual spiritual union the believer has with Christ by the Spirit. The reason the wrath of God does not abide on the believer is that the believer is TRULY "in Christ," (not positional but actual), and his PAST sins have been washed away/cleansed by the blood of Christ.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 3/4/2005 12:01:58 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2005 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
Hmmm. Precisely which OT writers are you referring to? I've yet to find solid evidence that the penal substitution view is taught anywhere in the Bible, including the OT.
Um...back to Numbers 16
Numbers 16:41-49
The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. "You have killed the LORD's people," they said.
But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the Tent of Meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the Tent of Meeting, and the LORD said to Moses, 45 "Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once." And they fell facedown.
Then Moses said to Aaron, "Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD ; the plague has started." So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah.Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, for the plague had stopped.
This explicitly deals with the idea of atonement that APPEASES God's anger. It's VISIBLY DISPLAYED...just like with the Moses/Zipporah encounter. Explain this Numbers 16 episode to me from the strictly moral government point of view.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/4/2005 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Explain this Numbers 16 episode to me from the strictly moral government point of view.
The penalty for sin, as it always is in scripture, in this case was death. Incense, not being a sentient being, much less a human being, could certainly not be thought of as a penal substitution in a quid pro quo sense of substition. This is true of all of the OT sacrifices of atonement; a goat, a lamb, a dove, etc., were not an EXACT substitution, nor could it be said that an animal dying "paid" God anything near what sin cost God and the sinner and those he may have sinned against.
Good question about the MG view of Num. 16. I will have to get back with you sometime this weekend on that, if time permits. My initial thought is that this episode does not provide us with enough information to formulate an idea as to how Aaron burning incense in the holy censer made atonement, though of course even with the MG view only those who are truly covered and cleansed the blood and intercession of Christ escape the just wrath of God. Another thing to consider is that incense being burned represents petitionary intercessory prayer; in Exodus, when God threatened to destroy the people of Israel for their rebellion, Moses "made atonement" simply by interceding in prayer for them.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 3/4/2005 12:03:34 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/4/2005 2:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
The scriptures reveal that He paid a ransom, which anyone can see is a very different thing from a debt. The metaphor of payment of a price for something (i.e., "you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body") is not altogether foreign to us in our culture today. We often speak of a soldier who died in a just cause as having "paid the price," just as we speak of a champion athlete as having "paid the price," through rigorous self-discipline and conditioning/training of his body.
Not a problem, if we understand that it was a ransom/redemption price that was paid, not a debt;
I agree...for the most part. But when we use the word "ransom," by definition we must mean something more substantial then the illustrative similarity of how a soldier paid the price. Soldiers do not pay the price in any similar respect to how Christ paid the price; for a soldier is not giving himself as a ransom. Rather, he dies in the line of duty during war. Christ, however, did not die in the line of duty, though he died in the midst of war, but that is beside the point.
Ransom (from dictionary.com):
- The release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price.
- The price or payment demanded or paid for such release.
These two definitions are very telling; for what "demanded" price is there that is not from a debt of some sort? The "release of a person..." I think is critical. This isn't a release in the hostage sense—someone or something was holding mankind in hostage, and Christ paid that ransom; that would be too short-sided. Man is captive, obviously, but he is captive within his own chains, and for what reason? He has stepped out of fellowship with God by committing moral crimes against God and his fellow man. Adam's attempt to find self-sustenance resulted in a human race of criminals. Christ's atoning work does not need to fall under a strict penal payment, because Adam's sin does not require this; nevertheless, the result of Adam's act is a bunch of transgressors (Romans 5). So Christ's work on the cross is a ransom, a payment for a debt (for us), but more precisely Christ's death is that multifaceted brilliancy of love, victory, sacrifice and substituion...all in context to Adam's transgression (a different transgression than ours, as Romans 5 points out) with the added benefit of dealing with the debt we owe (as law-breaking transgressors) before God.
Transgressors simply do not get off the hook as criminals. They are just fortunate enough to find their salvation indirectly, so to speak, in Christ's work on the cross having been in direct focus on Adam's transression. In other words, it cannot be that the cross of Christ does not, on some manner or another, address our moral crimes before God. Merely because Christ dies out of love or as a substitue or as a ransom does not explain why He must die in the first place. As I said in my first post, one dies for a debt of some kind. It doesn't do to say things like "Christ took our place and died for us"; what place did He take? That He died for me? Again, we are begging the question if we do not accurately explain these terms in the context of our moral crimes, for they never leave the stage but for one reason and one only; they are a debt that has been forgiven by means of a payment.
I stress again: the work of Christ is not purely and only penal; it doesn't have to be, but it addresses our moral crimes at the same time it addresses Adam's transgression. Else we are not accurately communicating when we use words like "ransom," for a ransom requires a price paid, and that price must entail our transgressions as well as Adams.
Starkman
Post Edited (Starkman) : 3/4/2005 1:56:52 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
jessemorrell
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2007
Total Posts : 77
| Posted 2/5/2008 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE & godrulz have done a good job posting on the atonement. I see that this thread was back in 2005. I wish I could have been here back then.
This is a short write up I have on the atonement:
Through Christ’s obedience of shedding His blood (Php 2:8) as an alternative, replacement, or substitute for our punishment of "eternal destruction" (2 Thess. 1:9) or the “second death” (Rev. 21:8) which is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23), the free gift of reconciliation can now be offered unto all men unto justification of life. Because Christ has shed His blood, our punishment of hellfire can be remitted or set aside (Heb. 9:22), our debt can be pardoned instead of paid (Matt. 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42), and we can have an eternal relationship with God. When blood shed substitutes our penalty of hell, our sins can be forgiven instead of punished (Acts 5:31, Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14), God’s wrath can pass over instead of being poured out (Ex. 12:13, 1 Cor. 5:7).
Forgiveness of sin is when the penalty of sin is dispensed with (2 Chron. 32:26, Num. 16:46-48, Ps. 78:38, Micah. 7:18-19, Jonah 3:9-10). The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins, so that our penalty can be let go or set aside (Matt. 26:28, Mk. 1:14, Lk. 1:77, Lk. 3:3, Lk. 24:47, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43, Rom. 3:25). Because of Christ, God can remand our punishment instead of demand our punishment. Through Christ, men can be justified (that is, reckoned righteous and not have their past sins accounted against them (Rom. 4:6-9)), which is the same thing as saying they can be forgiven or pardoned, so they can enter into the spiritual life of knowing God (Jn. 17:3). When men, from their heart, turn from their sin and trust in Christ, God will set aside their punishment “for Christ’s sake” (Eph. 4:32).
Here is another write up on the atonement
1. THE EXAMPLE OF THE SCAPE GOAT: Lev 16:9-10
In this illustration the scape goat would bare the sin of the people away into the wilderness.
Because the scape goat would bare the sins of the people many assumptions have been made. But the text does NOT allow for the assumptions that:
- punishment was transferred: the goat did not go to hell.
- moral guilty was transferred: the goat was not a moral agent and guilt cannot be transferred. Guilty has to do with personal actions. Nowhere does the text say that the goat was guilty of anything.
- moral character or moral identity was transferred: Moral character cannot be transferred but can only be developed. Character is not a commodity that can be bought and sold, transferred or inheritted.
The goat did not become a sinner neither did the priest become a goat. God did not see the goat as a sinner but rather as a goat. And God did not see the priest as a goat but rather as a priest.
Sin was represented but punishment, guilt, and character was not transferred.
What does the scape goat illustrate:
- an atonement is made on behalf of sins: the purpose of the atonement is that it is done for sins. Sacrifices are done for the sins of the people. The scape goat ceremony was for the sins of the people.
- an atonement substitutes our punishment: an atonement is always an alternative to punishment, which makes it possible for God not to execute the punishment. The scape goat was an alternative (substitute) to the peoples punishment.
- an atonement bares away sins (takes away sins). The effect of the atonement is to lead sinners to repentance. The atonement is to take away the actual sins of the people.
The scape goat would bare away the sins of the people, symbolically showing how an atonement takes away both the punishment of sin and also the actual sins.
JESUS CHRIST: is our scape goat. He, symbolically and not literally, bore our sins on the tree. That means that Christ died on behalf of our sins (sin offering) so that the sins don't have to be punished and Christ takes away our sins by leading us into repentance.
------------------------------------------------------------
2. THE EXAMPLE OF THE PASSOVER LAMB: Exodus 12:21-23
In this story, a lambs blood was to be put on the door of the house for the plague to passover instead of being poured out.
It must be noticed that
- the passover lamb did not receive the plague instead of the Israelites
- the passover lamb did not become guilty of anything
- the passover lamb did not become a sinner
- the Israelites did not change identities with the lamb
The passover lamb:
- Was an alternative (or substituted) to the plague sent by God.
- Made it possible for the plague to passover instead of poured out.
JESUS CHRIST: is our passover lamb (1Cor 5:7). He did not receive the plague (wrath) but makes it possible for the plague (wrath) to "passover" instead of being poured out.
------------------------------------------------------------
3. THE EXAMPLE OF THE SERPENT IN THE DESERT: Numbers 21:6-8
As a punishment for sins, God sent serpents to bite the Israelites. To "take away the serpents from among us" Moses, as instructed by God, lifted up a serpent upon a pole so that all who look to it would be healed.
It should be understood that
- The serpent on the pole was not bitten by the other serpents
- The Israelites did not exchange identities with the serpent on the pole
- The serpent on the pole did not become guilty of any sin
- The serpent on the pole did not become a sinner
The serpent on the pole:
- Made it possible for the Israelites to be healed (forgiven: escape further punishment). All they had to do with to look to the Serpent on the pole and they would cease from being bitten and would be healed of their wounds.
JESUS CHRIST: is the serpent in the wilderness (Jn 3:14). Jesus makes it possible for us to be healed, that is, forgiven of our sins so that our sins are not punished. If we will but look to Jesus, we will be saved from wrath and our sins will be forgiven.
------------------------------------------------------------
4. THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF ANY ATONEMENT:
There are other accomplishments of an atonement but these are the major ones: Righteousness imparted and righteousness imputed:
- FORGIVENESS: (Righteousness imputed) Without blood shed their is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:11). That means that without an atonement, punishment must be executed. But with an atonement, punishment can be set aside, sins can be forgiven instead of punished.
Romans 3:24-26 says that the blood atonement makes it possible for God to graciously forgive our sins (instead of punish them) and that the blood atonement makes it JUST for God to do so, since justice requires either atonement or punishment.
- REPENTANCE: (Righteousness imparted) The Lamb of God takes away our sin(John 1:29) His blood cleanses us from all sin (1John 1:7, 1John 3:5). The effect of the atonement is to bring the sinner to repentance, to cleanse him from all sin, to purify and purge him.
------------------------------------------------------------
5. ATONEMENT INSTEAD OF PUNISHMENT:
The scriptures represent an atonement as an alternative to punishment, or as a substituted for punishment, which makes it possible for God to forgive instead of punish.
AN EXAMPLE: would be in Numbers 16:46-48. In this story, wrath was being poured out upon the Israelites. But when Aaron made an atonement for sins, the wrath was "stayed" instead of poured out.
------------------------------------------------------------
6. FORGIVENESS OF SINS INSTEAD OF PUNISHMENT OF SINS:
It should be understood that:
- Sins that are punished are not sins that are forgiven.
- Sins that are forgiven are not sins that are punished.
The bible says:
- that God actually forgives sins: Mat 9:6, Mark 2:7, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:21, Luke 5:24, Luke 11:4, 1John 1:9.
- that the atonement makes it possible for God to forgive (remission) sins: Mat 26:28, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:43, Heb 10:18)
Because of the atonement of Christ, God can actually forgive our sins instead of punish our sins, God can actually be just in setting aside our punishment.
------------------------------------------------------------
7. PARDON OF DEBT INSTEAD OF PAYMENT OF DEBT:
It should be understood that:
- A debt paid is not a debt pardoned
- A debt pardoned is not a debt paid
- Pardon and forgiveness are synonymous
- Payment and punishment are synonymous
The bible says:
- God actually pardons the debt: Mat 6:12, Matt 18:27, Luke 7:42.
These are examples of unpaid debts being forgiven. Only unpaid debts can be forgiven, since paid debts are not forgiven but paid.
Matthew 18 particularly makes payment and pardon an antithesis.
God can only pardon our debts, when an atonement is made. An atonement is a substituted for our payment. An atonement is the price of blood to substituted for the payment or penalty of hell.
----------------------------------------------
- Christ ransomed us: Mat 20:28, Mar 10:45, 1Ti 2:6
- We were bought with a price: 1Co 6:20, 1Co 7:23
1. Through voluntary obedience to sin we were servants of sin
Joh 8:34: "Jesus answered them, verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin."
Romans 6:16: "Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness"
2. We are serving the devil by sinning
1John 3:8: "He that commits sin is of the devil"
3. Christ died to save us from sin, to redeem us from sin
Matt 1:21: "He shall save his people from their sin."
Gal 1:4 "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world."
Titus 2:14: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us [ransom us] from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
4. Therefore Christ died to ransom us from our captivity to sin and the devil
Luke 4:18: "To preach deliverance to the captives"
Eph 4:8: "He led captivity captive" [captivity to death, sin, and the devil all together]
5. God sets us free from the devil through our own repentance
2Ti 2:25: "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
6. But it is the atonement that brings repentance
Rom 2:4 "the goodness of God leads you to repentance"
1Jn 4:19 "We love him, because he first loved us."
Since the atonement brings repentance, and repentance sets us free from the devil, then the atonement sets us free [ransoms us] from the devil.
7. Regeneration is by revelation: 2Pet 2:20, 1Pet 1:22, 2Pet 1:2-3, 2Pet 2:25, John 6:23, John 6:44-45, John 8:32, Titus 2:11-12, 1Tim 2:4, 1Cor 4:15, James 1:18, 1Pet 1:23, James 1:21-22, Rom 2:8, John 15:3, John 17:17, 2Thes 1:8, 1Pet 4:17, Rom 6:17)
It is no doubt a revelation of the cross which changes a persons life; it is a revelation of the atonement that transforms a persons inner heart.
- The truth of the atonement influences a man's will to repent
- When the man's will yields to the influence of truth the man repents
- When he repents he is set free from sin and the devil.
- And so the atonement of Christ sets us free [ransoms us] from captivity to the devil.
DID CHRIST TAKE OUR PUNISHMENT?
To answer this question, we must ask this question:
WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN?
There are two sides of this argument. There are those who say that physical death is our punishment, and there are those who say that eternal death is our punishment.
I take the side of those who say that eternal death is the punishment for sin. Though physical death is a consequences of Adams sin, since we were kicked out of the garden, eternal death is the direct punishment for each man's personal sin.
WHAT IF PHYSICAL DEATH IS OUR PUNISHMENT?
We know that Christ physically died, He did not burn in hell. So those who argue that Christ took our punishment have to say that physical death, and not hell, is our punishment.
- If physical death is our punishment, and Christ took our punishment so we don't have to be punished, then we should not have to physically die.
- If physical death is our punishment, then once every dies physically, they don't have to face any eternal punishment.
- If physical death is our punishment, then men are punished for their sins before judgment day, and after judgment day men are not punished for their sins.
- If physical death is our punishment, and we still physically die, then our sins are punished twice.
- If physical death is our punishment, and we still physically die, then Christ did not save us from our punishment.
- Whatever Christ saves us from must be the punishment of our sins, since Christ died to save us from our punishment. If Christ saves us from the second death in hell, and not physical death, then hellfire must be the punishment for our sins.
- But if hellfire is our punishment, and Christ did not go to hell, then Christ did not take our punishment, but rather shed his blood for our sins so that our sins don't have to be punished but can be forgiven. So Christ atoned for our sins, He wasn't punished for our sins.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
Rom 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death"
2Th 1:9 "who shall be punished with everlasting destruction"
Rev 20:14 "the lake of fire. This is the second death"
Revelations 21:8 "the lake which burns with fire and brimestone, which is the second death"
So the wages of sin is eternal death in hellfire. The punishment of our sin is "everlasting destruction".
SO IF CHRIST DID NOT LITERALLY TAKE OUR PUNISHMENT, WHAT DID CHRIST DO?
Christ and his blood shed is the substituted for us and our punishment of hell: Isaiah 53:5
The law required either an atonement for our sins (blood shed) or the punishment of our sin (hellfire): Heb 9:19, 9:22
When the atonement of blood is made, the punishment of hell can be set aside: Heb 9:22
- Because Christ shed his blood, God is able to pardon our debts instead of require the payment of our debt: Matt 6:12, Matt 18:27, Luke 7:42
- Because Christ shed his blood, God is able to forgive us our sins instead of punish our sins: Acts 5:31, Acts 13:38, Acts 26:18, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9:22
- Because Christ shed his blood, God is just in forgiving our sins and just in pardoning our debt: Romans 2:26. He is just in setting aside our punishment of hell because the requirement of the law is satisfied: Heb 9:19, 9:22
For the Audience of One
Jesse Morrell
www.OpenAirOutreach.comPost Edited (jessemorrell) : 2/5/2008 3:09:36 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:13 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|