Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 6, 2008 13:08:11 GMT -5
THE MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD
“That creation and moral government, including both law and gospel, together with the penal sanctions are only efforts of benevolence, to secure the highest good.” Charles G. Finney (1851 Edition of Systematic Theology, p. 60)
“That God’s ultimate end, in all he does, or omits, is the highest well-being of himself, and of the universe, and that in all his acts and dispensations, his ultimate object is the promotion of this end.” Charles G. Finney (1851 Edition of Systematic Theology, p. 59)
“God acts, not from any contracted, selfish motives, but from the most noble benevolence and regard to the public good. It hath often and long since been made a matter of objection to the doctrines of future punishment of the wicked, and the atonement of Christ, that they represent the Deity as having regard merely to his own honor and dignity, and not to the good of his creatures, and therefore represents him as deficient in goodness.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (Inferences and Reflections on Atonement, p. 6)
"God legislates, not arbitrarily or oppressively, but wisely and equitably." John Miley (Theory and Scripture Interpretation, p. 2)
THE PURPOSE OF LAWS
"Let it be distinctly understood that the divine law originates in God's benevolence, and has no other than a benevolent end in view. It has revealed only and solely to promote the greatest possible good, by means of obedience. Charles Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 3)
“Moral Law is thus the expression of the principles of moral government. While the expression of moral law proceeds from the divine will, the action prescribed originates in the divine intelligence. Moral law is not something which may be altered or changed in our present circumstances. It is that precise prescription of action in the relation of moral beings that shall result in the happiness of all. The absolutely intelligent God, in a state of love or voluntary benevolence, views objectively what is the only conduct in His moral creatures that can result in happiness to Himself and to them.” Gordon Olson (The Moral Government of God, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 12)
“The moral law is like a fence on a farm. It not only shows ownership but provides protection.” Harry Conn (Four Trojan Horses, Published by Mott Media, p. 79)
“Isaiah 9:6-7…. As government increases, peace increases… government is meant to increase peace. This is the basic reason for government. Without government there is chaos. Government brings order, and as a result, peace.” Michael Saia (Understanding the Cross, Published by Xulon, p. 59).
THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT
“But in order to a moral law, there must be a penalty; otherwise it would be mere advice, but no law.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 4)
“Consequences” are “the enforcement of moral government… The idea of sanctions, therefore, is unavoidably associated with moral government and moral law. It is the method of enforcing moral government.” Gordon Olson (The Moral Government of God, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 36)
“The purpose of punishment is to prevent sin, in the individual and in the society. It is not primarily to reform the guilty. A moral government seeks to evaluate properly the seriousness of a given crime against society and prevent its repetition by exhibiting an appropriate punishment. Punishment is a public declaration of the fact that disobedience and rebellion against God will not be tolerated, and thus becomes a barrier to all who are considering the ways of lawlessness and incompliance.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 70-71)
"The penalty was designed as a testimony to God's regard for the precept and his law, and to his purpose to sustain it.” Charles Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 3)
“There can be no law without sanctions. Precept without sanction is only counsel or advice, and no law… Sanctions are to be regarded as an expression of the benevolent regard of the Law-giver to His subjects; the motives which He exhibits to induce in the subjects the course of conduct that will secure their highest well-being.” Charles Finney (Skeletons of a Course of Theological Lectures, 1840, p. 202-203)
“The suffering of a sinner, of one who transgresses the law, are right and good for the ends of the government which we are members. The penalty is inflicted, not for the mere sake of putting the delinquent to pain, nor of gratifying the private revenge of a ruler, but to secure and promote the public ends of good government. These ends are to prevent others from transgressing; by giving, to all the subjects, a decided and clear demonstration of the dignity of the law, and a tangible proof of the evil of crime.” Thomas W. Jenkyn (The Extent of the Atonement, p. 144)
WHAT THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT IS NOT
“God has the same natural reaction to personal injury that we do, but has a complete conquest of love so that governmental expediency, and not personal vindictiveness, dictates every manifestation of righteous indignation and judgment.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, published by Revival Theology Promotion, p. 46)
Vengeance is “The infliction of pain on another, in return for an injury or offense. Such infliction, when it proceeds from malice or mere resentment, and is not necessary for the purposes of justice, is revenge, and a most heinous crime. When such infliction proceeds from a mere love of justice, and the necessity of punishing offenders for the support of the laws, it is vengeance, and is warrantable and just. In this case, vengeance is a just retribution, recompense or punishment. In this latter sense the word is used in Scripture, and frequently applied to the punishment inflicted by God on sinners.” The 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary
“The design of punishment is not revenge or vengeance; for it is not to gratify private feelings or to redress private wrong, - which is the true notion of revenge or vengeance. It is not the infliction of pain for an offence committed against an individual. It is always, though it may be for a wrong done to an individual, inflicted for the offence regarded as perpetrated against the peace of a community; against the lawgiver; against the law itself. When a man is punished for assault and battery, it is not pain inflicted considered as a recompense to the individual who has been injured or wronged: it is as a just retribution for a crime against the peace of the society and the honour of the law… When a man is punished for murder, it is not as an act of recompense to the murdered man, - for he is beyond the reach of all such recompense,- but it is for an offence against the law and the peace of the community… The crime is punished, not as a matter of private vengeance or satisfaction, but as due to public justice… the affair is no longer one of a private character, but becomes one pertaining wholly to the public.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 191-192)
WHAT FORGIVENESS IS
“Forgiving is defined as the act of forgiving; the act of granting pardon, as for a wrong, offense, or sin; the remission of an obligation, debt, or penalty; pardon. Forgiveness is basically the disposition or willingness to forgive or pardon. To forgive means to give or to give up, to give over, to resign, to grant free pardon for or remission of a wrongful act or an obligation. It is to give up all claims for or on account of an injury, all forms of compensation, benefit, or return. It is to give up all forms of retribution or retaliation for wrongs committed. It is to abandon all resentment in a spirit of cheerful leniency and a restoration of the subject deserving displeasure to good will and friendship.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 2-3)
"Will not impute sin. On whom the Lord will not charge his sins; or who shall not be reckoned or regarded as guilty. This shows clearly what the apostle meant by imputing faith without works. It is to pardon sin, and to treat with favour; not to reckon or charge a man's sin to him; but to treat him, though personally undeserving and ungodly (ver. 5), as though the sin had not been committed." Albert Barnes (Commentary on the Romans, p. 106)
Regarding Matthew 18:23-27, “The sole reason for the slave’s reason was his lord’s compassion. Forgiveness in this parable is certainly the relaxation of a legitimate claim. No third party intervened, no bargain was made, the debtor was simply released from his debt. It is possible to receive payment on a claim, and it is permissible to forgive a claim, but you cannot do both! The Bible portrays a God who is completely desirous and willing to forgive sin without receiving any payment to satisfy a vindictive urge.” George Otis Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 88)
“For forgiveness to mean anything, it must mean that no one pays the penalty. If forgiveness is real, then God simply releases us from the penalty of our sin…” Michael Saia, (Understanding the Cross, Published by Xulon, p. 147)
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF FORGIVENESS?
“Whenever sin is forgiven, its consequences are eliminated, thus weakening the enforcement of moral government.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 71)
“Every just penalty the lawbreaker pays strengthens moral government; almost every mercy he receives weakens justice, unless government finds a method of blending mercy and justice… His problem was to find a way to: 1) uphold His law, 2) show His hatred for sin, 3) set the man free without encouraging others to sin.” George Otis Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 81, 82)
“For God to freely forgive would weaken the strength of justice and encourage future rebellion and disobedience… God’s problem in forgiving man is NOT personal, but governmental.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Published by Bethany House, p. 98)
WHAT THE PROBLEMS OF FORGIVENESS ARE NOT
"A voluntary disposition of mercy and forgiveness prevails equally among all the Members of the Godhead. The Godhead are without personal vindictiveness. The problems of forgiveness are not personal but government. God does not require an exact payment for sin to satisfy retributive justice, but only requires that an atonement shall satisfy public justice and all the problems of a full and free reconciliation in His government of moral beings." Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 89)
“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) (The Truth Shall Make You Free by Gordon Olson, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 99)
“The atonement does not change God. It does not make him in any sense a different Being from what he was before the atonement was made. It is not held, and it cannot be held, that God was, before the atonement was made, severe, stern, and inexorable, and that he has been made mild and forgiving by the death of the Redeemer. It is not held, and cannot be held, that he was indisposed originally to show mercy and that he has been bought over to mercy, or that such an influence has been exerted on him by the atonement as to make him now willing to do what he was indisposed to do before.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 219)
“The simple statements of the Bible seem to be, that sin is such a dreadful tragedy in the kingdom of God that it cannot be disposed of in any simple manner. Some equivalently terrible event must be brought to pass to deal honorably with the matter. God may be ever so ready to forgive freely man’s sin out of His great bounty of love, but cannot do so simply because there are other conditions and problems involved.” Gordon Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 108)
“The unchangeable God may consistently offer pardon to a sinner now that an atonement has been made, though there would be insuperable difficulties in such an offer if no atonement had been provided.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 223)
"An atonement was needed, not to render God merciful, but to reconcile pardon with a due administration of justice." Charles G. Finney (1851 Systematic Theology, p. 288)
"God is love, and prefers mercy when it is safely exercised. The Bible represents him as delighting in mercy, and affirms that judgment is his strange work." Charles G. Finney (1851 Systematic Theology, p. 289)
"The government bearings of this scheme are perfectly apparent. The whole transaction tends powerfully to sustain God's law, and reveal his love and even mercy to sinners. It shows that he is personally ready to forgive, and needs only to have such an arrangement made that he can do it safely as to his government. What could show his readiness to forgive sin so strikingly as this? See how carefully he guards against the abuse of pardon! Always ready to pardon, yet ever watchful over the great interest of obedience and happiness, lest they be imperiled by its freeness and fullness!" Charles G. Finney (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30: 1856; On the Atonement, p. 5)
“The problem was not with God as an offended party requiring vindictive satisfaction, but with God as a loving Moral Governor who desires to do justice to all His subjects.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 68)
“No appeasement of Divine wrath is necessary as a prelude to mercy; no vindictive reactions need to be satisfied; no inner antagonism needs to be subdued; no unwillingness must be overcome; no payment in the absolute sense needs to be made for every sin that is to be passed over. The problems of forgiveness do not relate to God considered as an isolated Being, but to God in relationship to His moral creatures as a Moral Governor. The problems are not personal, but governmental.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 38)
Some theologians “insist on presenting a vindictive God who demands a payment before He will forgive. Surely this is an obvious contradiction of Jesus’ parable on forgiveness, where the man was forgiven his debt solely on the basis of compassion – without payment of any kind! Certainly there were governmental considerations for God to weigh. There was the necessity to uphold the law and justify the Lawgiver in the issuance of a pardon in opposition to His words, ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’ However, to in any way confuse God’s governmental role with His personal feelings is gross error. God always wanted to forgive… He needed only to find a way to do it wisely. George Otis. Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 24)
THE GOVERNMENTAL ATONEMENT
“The very idea of atonement is something done, which, to the purpose of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity and consistency of divine government and conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and on the ground of which, the sinner may be saved from that curse…a less degree or duration of suffering endured by Christ the Son of God, may, on account of the infinite dignity and glory of his person, be an equivalent to the curse of the law endured by the sinner.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 7)
“His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured. There are some things in the penalty of the Law, which the Lord Jesus did not endure, and which a substitute or a vicarious victim could not endure. Remorse of conscience is a part of the inflicted penalty of the Law, and will be a vital part of the sufferings of the sinner in hell - but the Lord Jesus did not endure that. Eternity of sufferings is an essential part of the penalty of the Law - but the Lord Jesus did not suffer forever. Thus, there are numerous sorrows connected with the consciousness of personal guilt, which the Lord Jesus did not and cannot endure.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)
“He did not endure eternal death….eternal death was the penalty of the law...No man can possibly hold that the Redeemer endured eternal sorrow; and no man, therefore, who believes that the penalty of the law is eternal death, can consistently maintain that he endured the literal penalty of the law.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 236-237)
“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.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)
“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.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6)
“The death of Christ manifests God’s hatred of sin and love of holiness in the same sense as the damnation of the wicked manifests these, namely, on the supposition that the divine law is just and holy. If it be allowed the divine law is just and holy, then every thing done to support and execute that law, is a declaration in favor of holiness and against sin; or a declaration of God’s love of holiness and his hatred of iniquity…By atonement I mean that which, as a substitute for the punishment which is threatened in the law, supports the authority of that law, and the dignity of the divine government.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (Inferences and Reflections on Atonement, p. 3)
"If free pardon is to be extended to penitent sinners, some great measure must be substituted for the punishment of sinners that will uphold the moral government of God at least equally as well as the pronounced consequences would have done." Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 95)
"In his undertaking the work of redemption; in his manifested character on earth; in his teaching; in the spirit with which he bore his trials; in his readiness to meet death, and in the manner in which he actually met it; in the offers of salvation which he made to mankind on the ground of the sacrifice which he made for human guilt, no one who believes the Saviour at all can doubt that he was in all respects pleasing to God. Whatever were the sufferings which were brought upon him, they were not of the nature of punishment for his own offences; whatever was the reason why he was left in darkness and gloom on the cross, it was not because he had incurred for himself the wrath of God. In the very midst of those sufferings he was performing a work which, of all the works ever performed on the earth, was most acceptable to a pure and holy God." Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 292-293)
“An atonement is, properly, an arrangement by which the literal infliction of the penalty due to sin may be avoided; it is something which may be substituted in the place of punishment; it is that which will answer the same end which would be secured by the literal infliction of the penalty of the law. It is not a commercial transaction, - a matter of debt and payment, of profit and loss. It pertains to law, to government, to holiness; not to literal debt and payment.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 230)
“Retributive justice, therefore, is not at all satisfied by the death of Christ. But the general justice to the Deity and to the universe is satisfied. That is done by the death of Christ which supports the authority of the law, and renders it consistent with the glory of God, and the good of the whole system, to pardon the sinner.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (Inferences and Reflections on Atonement, p. 8)
"The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent to the meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by the infliction of the legal penalty upon all sinners." Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 100)
"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 requires an invariable execution of deserved penalty, but in the fact that the honor and glory of God, and the welfare of his creatures, require that his essential and rectoral righteousness be adequately declared. The death of Christ is exponential of divine justice, and is a satisfaction in that sense, and not in the sense that it is, as of a debt, the full and complete payment of all its demands." John Miley (The Governmental Theory of the Atonement, p. 9)
“Atonement is, properly, an arrangement by which the literal infliction of the penalty due to sin may be avoided; it is something which may be substituted in the place of punishment. It is that which will answer the same end secured by the literal infliction of the penalty of the law… The atonement is the governmental provision for the forgiveness of sins, providing man meets the conditions of repentance and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” Harry Conn (Four Trojan Horses, Published by Mott Media, p. 80-81)
“It [the atonement] provides a substitute for the penalty of the law”. Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, The Nature of Sin, Published by Communication Foundation Publishers)
“The very idea of atonement is something done, which, to the purpose of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity and consistency of divine government and conduct, is fully equivalent to the curse of the law, and on the ground of which, the sinner may be saved from that curse…a less degree or duration of suffering endured by Christ the Son of God, may, on account of the infinite dignity and glory of his person, be an equivalent to the curse of the law endured by the sinner.” Jonathon Edwards Jr. (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 7)
“His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured. There are some things in the penalty of the Law, which the Lord Jesus did not endure, and which a substitute or a vicarious victim could not endure. Remorse of conscience is a part of the inflicted penalty of the Law, and will be a vital part of the sufferings of the sinner in hell - but the Lord Jesus did not endure that. Eternity of sufferings is an essential part of the penalty of the Law - but the Lord Jesus did not suffer forever. Thus, there are numerous sorrows connected with the consciousness of personal guilt, which the Lord Jesus did not and cannot endure.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)
"If free pardon is to be extended to penitent sinners, some great measure must be substituted for the punishment of sinners that will uphold the moral government of God at least equally as well as the pronounced consequences would have done." Gordon C. Olson (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 95)
“Atonement is, properly, an arrangement by which the literal infliction of the penalty due to sin may be avoided; it is something which may be substituted in the place of punishment. It is that which will answer the same end secured by the literal infliction of the penalty of the law… The atonement is the governmental provision for the forgiveness of sins, providing man meets the conditions of repentance and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.” Harry Conn (Four Trojan Horses, p. 80-81)