|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 3, 2008 0:16:53 GMT -5
This question is for those who do not believe that the necessity of the atonement springs from the nature of God. In Romans 3:25 the apostle Paul says that Jesus is the one "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation..." (NASB)
What do you understand this term "propitiation" to mean?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Dec 3, 2008 1:15:11 GMT -5
for me, that means that the Son of God came to reconcile mankind to God, and He came exactly at the right moment.
You say "Jesus is the one "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation..." exactly ! For only God could pleased God , so to speak.
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. [2 Cor 5 : 17-19]
We are reconcile to God, only through the death of Jesus , by His blood shed on the Cross.
|
|
|
Post by debonnaire on Dec 3, 2008 4:12:09 GMT -5
Steve writes : the atonement springs from the nature of God.
Amen, one aspect of the nature of God is sacrificial love. He could not have decided and done exactly the atonement , if that free sacrificial love was not in God's nature, revealed in the Lamb of God
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 3, 2008 9:20:05 GMT -5
THE HONOR OF THE LAW not THE PENALTY OF THE LAW
My understanding is that Jesus provided a satisfaction to the law of God on our behalf. Jesus provided a satisfaction (propitiation) for our sins. The penalty of the law was not satisfied, but the authority of the law was satisfied. The penalty of the law was the eternal suffering of the guilty sinner. This did not occur in the atonement. But the authority of the law required that if the penalty be set aside, an atonement should substitute it, which will declare to God's Kingdom His regard for His law, lest his law falls into contempt.
“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.” Catherine Booth (Popular Christianity, Published by Convention Bookstore, p. 30)
"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)
PUBLIC JUSTICE not RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Retributive justice was not at all satisfied by the atonement, but public justice was. Retributive justice required the eternal death of the sinner. Jesus was not a sinner and Jesus did not suffer eternity in hell. Therefore retributive justice was not satisfied. The guilty (sinners) live but the innocent (Jesus) died. This is not retributive justice! But public justice was propitiation. Public justice required the vindication of God's law, that God publicly displays His regard for His law before His Kingdom lest His law falls into contempt, lest it weakens the authority and influence of His law by pardoning transgressors. Now that a substitute for the penalty of the law has been provided, God can pardon transgressors and maintain the authority and influence of His law at the same time. The atonement made a satisfaction (propitiation) for the law of God. He made a satisfaction (propitiation) for our sins (transgressions of God's law).
“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)
GOD'S WRATH NOT SATISFIED
Often people think that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God. But if that is true, why does God still have wrath after the atonement? Just look at what God did to King Herod in Acts. Just look at the bowls of God's wrath in Revelations. Obviously God still has wrath after the atonement. Jesus shed his blood for the remission of sins. Remission is forgiveness. Forgiveness is not when God's wrath is satisfied, forgiveness is when God turns from His wrath. The atonement made it possible for God to turn from His wrath when sinners repent. God can set aside His wrath when sinners are converted, without weakening His law throughout His kingdom, because Jesus died as a substitute for sinners.
GOD AS A MORAL RULER, NOT AS AN INDIVIDUAL
It was not God, as an individual, that required the shedding of blood to forgive. Individuals can forgive without atonement. It was God, as a Moral Governor, that required the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. As a Moral Governor, God cannot forgive (set aside the execution of the penalty of the law) unless there is a substitute provided which takes the place of the execution of the penalty of the law, so that the authority and influence of His law be maintained throughout His Kingdom.
“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 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)
“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)
REMISSION & PROPITIATION RECONCILED
The word "remission" means to remit penalty. When God grants the remission of sins, it means that God remits our penalty. Jesus said His blood was shed for the remission of sins. That means that Jesus shed his blood so that God could set aside our punishment.
Remission and propitiation are reconcilable. God can remit our penalty, because the purpose of the penalty is satisfied in the atonement. The purpose of penalty is to declare to God's kingdom His regard for His law, to maintain the authority and honor of His law. The atonement, as a substitute for the penalty of the law, accomplishes or satisfied the purpose of the penalty of the law. And therefore God can remit our penalty, because of the propitiation offered by the atonement.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 3, 2008 12:47:44 GMT -5
This question is for those who do not believe that the necessity of the atonement springs from the nature of God. In Romans 3:25 the apostle Paul says that Jesus is the one "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation..." (NASB) What do you understand this term "propitiation" to mean? Steve Satisfaction & appeasement of the law. Law needs to be satisfied so that the Law Maker (God) is proven to be of value in His own character which the law reveals. It isn't the law that needs to be proven valuable, but who &/or what it serves and protects, which is God's character and His creation who is created in His likeness and in His image. The law also requires satisfaction for justice to be met, vindication of the offended, vengeance to be given or taken, a just retribution, recompense...ect... Justice is meant to teach that whoever it serves and protects has personal worth so if one offended by a crime, or commits a crime, he will be judged as someone who is worth equal to but not greater than the criminal, or the victim if being the criminal. In other words, Justice is to keep the establishment of the value of the victim and the criminal to be equal. All mankind has brought damaged to Gods character or tainted His holy Name by braking His Law, disobeying His Commandments, rebelling against His Word & authority. God was insulted to a degree that His character was maligned and He was defamed and virtually dethroned by the offender. We did not sin in away as to owe God a debt as in the form of a sum, but in the way of disbelief and unfaithfulness, which deems God to be a liar on our behalf and in doing so, we destroy His character; this is elevating ourselves over God and putting ourselves in His place. We owe God the repair or renewal of His character which we maligned. In regards to man sinning against God, we are not sinning against any moral governmental juditial structure. There is no atonement for sinning against such. All sin is against God personally. His law is only to show us what and how we accomplished by breaking it. Whenever anyone disobeys God in any way, they are virtually not trusting God calling Him a liar, stating by their actions that God can not be trusted and that He is no authority to make any boundaries. Proclaiming that God is not good in providing what is needed for staying within His boundaries. In doing this they sin. Whenever anyone sins, they are transgressing what they know to be true (that there is a law which is being broken) which proclaims that they are autonomous, self governing and in no need of support from anything apart from them selves. They are basically saying, "I am that I am". Doing this they are opposing and exalting themselves above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that they deem themselves as God (2Thessalonians 2:4). The law was added because of transgressions, it exist for the reason of making unlawful affections to be evidently unlawful. In other words, the law exists so that my unlawful affections would be evidently more wicked in contrast to the specific commands of the law. The purpose of the law is to teach one of the character of the LawGiver also to guide and to guard us while directing us to mercy of the LawGiver, (Romans 7:13, Galatians 3:19,24) Jesus is the only Man that has reflected the character of the Father perfectly which all mankind should have done; Jesus performed the law perfectly, therefore, while in His earthly ministry, He would have had a perfect conscience from sin according to Hebrews 9:9 This grace that we may be legally justified is that HE is the propitiation (satisfacyion) to the righteous requirements of the law(Colos 2:14) because He HimSelf, alone kept the law through the spirit of it. We acknowledge this by baptism, which symbolizes our death and resurrection in Christ, not by the removing of outward filth of the flesh but by providing us with a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God through the [death and] resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1Peter 3:21. Therefore, only after death, one can be born again and live perfectly according to the [spirit of the] law, being brought out from under the law, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4 All this is only through faith because of His grace (Ephesians 2:8). I must repeat, all this is only through faith because it is impossible to please God without faith Hebrews 11:6. Furthermore, it is only by this faith that righteousness is imputed to us.(Romans 4:3 Galatians 3:6 James 2:23) Imputed righteousness that only comes by faith causes one to good works which brings imparted righteousness. It is known that Faith with out works is dead (James 2:26). We must know what these works are in order to further understand Imputed & imparted Righteousness. Works are the fruit of righteousness (Philippians 1:11). In other words, a changed life, a new view on life, and a new motive for everything that you do. One may ask, if one doesn't work for salvation, then how is faith dead without works? It is in these new aspects of your life, there will come actions or works that give a testimony of Christ in you (Colossians 1:27). In other words, just as you don't work to get a job, but that you work since you have a job. So it is that you don't work to be righteousness, but you work because you are righteous; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, 5:14, Hebrews 10:38) or, the faithful will live justly, or the justified shall live faithfully. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). This must be spiritual death because the free gift is also spiritual, eternal life. The penalty of sin is not ''to suffer an eternal punishment''. If the wage of sin is eternal death, Jesus could not have paid the penalty, for He did not suffer death eternally. However, He did suffer spiritual and physical death. The only reason That the damned suffer an eternal punishment is because they die without spiritual life. If spiritual life after death is in the presence with God and becomes eternal, then to die without spiritual life is eternal punishment. If one does not stay in the presence of Christ, there is no other place to be but in outer darkness where there is nashing of teeth. Since by the deeds of the (letter of the) law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight (Romans 3:20a), that is unless one stayed innocent from day one of accountability: the question remains, then, how is man justified if one can not be justified by it, consistently obeying the law? It must be by forgiveness of sins by grace through faith which is by the spirit of the law, from Jesus who fulfilled and shows us how to fulfill the law as walking after the spirit.(Mat 5:17-48, Rom 7:6, 8:3 9:31-32, 13:8) We know that whatever the [letter of the] Law says, it speaks to those under the [letter of the] Law, therefore, in order for man to be justified, man must be taken out from under it having been set free from being under the Law by dieing to the Law through the body of Christ.(Romans 7:6, Galatians 5:18) Therefore, we must die to the Law through the body of Christ by faith. We will then also rise from the dead with Him through faith. (Ephesians 2:5-6) This is why Jesus needed to die physically and raise from the dead with His glorified body, so that we might die through Him and be raised with Him by faith so that through Him we might take the penalty for our own sins; all this is through the spirit if the law.(2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Hebrews 2:9,14,17-18) Now that we are risen with Christ through faith, we now, also have eternal life that creates good works from faith because of the love of God poured out in our hearts.(Romans 5:5) The bible tells us that one must be born again from above(John 3:3 & 1Peter 1:23) We can be born again only after we accept by faith the full sacrifice of Jesus on His cross and acknowledge His resurrection; most of all acknowledging our place in His death for the penalty of our own sin. However, there is no possible way that anyone may have a substitute for punishment of a crime such as murder in a moral governmental judicial system as we have in society. For example, a father could never take a son's place in his execution for murder. Furthermore, a King could never let a law breaker go free as in the case of Daniel and the lion's den. However, Jesus did take our place in judgment through His sacrifice that He might satisfy the law as our proxy. He could do this because sin is only against God personally and not against a moral governmental judicial system. To understand how the sacrifice of Jesus (The Atonement) satisfies the law which gives glory to God, we must know what God says concerning the Atonement. Since we already know that all sin is against God personally and not against any moral government, God may forgive on the bases of the sinner being changed by repentance and a new life all together. Just so God dose not have people whom He forgives to take it lightly and stay just as wicked as before being forgiven as we read in Matthew 18:28-30, God uses His law of death on the account of sin to implement the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. God says, in Romans 6:23, " for the wages of sin is [spiritual & physical] death, but the gift of God is eternal (spiritual) life in Christ Jesus our Lord.and, Deut.21:23, " His body shall not remain overnight on the tree (cross) , but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who hangs on a tree is accursed of God."Jesus was taken off the cross that same day He died so the curse of sin would stay on Him. Lev.17:11, " For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul."Heb. 9:22, "for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin"When Jesus finished all that needed to done: (1) Curse of the law to be taken away (2Corinth 5:21, Gal 3:13). (a) For the setting free of the captive slave of the law(Luke 4:18, Galatians 5:1). (2) Blood to be shed for the cleansing/purging from the guilt and the clearing of the conscience of the guilt of sin (Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:14) (a) purchasing/redeeming from the judgment of sin which is our forgiveness(Ephesians 1:7 & 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23). God accepted His sacrifice. In verification of God's acceptance, He raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection is the basis of our Faith (1 Corinthians 15:14) This selfless, loving sacrifice on our account is to break the heart of the sinner and cause him to acknowledge his sin and the judgment of his sin. When we acknowledge our place in His death we may also acknowledge our place in resurrection(Rom 6:3-6), only then can we be redeemed & cleansed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot(1Peter 1:19, Titus 2:14) and freed from being under the law(Romans 6:14 & 7:4) as being under grace instead(Romans 6:14): acknowledging that He is representing us on that cross and we die through Christ and rise in newness of life(Romans 6:4 &11).
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 3, 2008 13:12:18 GMT -5
Jesse & Logic,
Thanks for the thorough responses. I want to digest this a bit to make sure I grasp all that is being presented here. I must say that I recoil at the phrase by Olson that "The problems are not personal, but governmental". I do believe that the problems are personal. I believe that necessity of the atonement lies in the very nature of God. I believe the law is a reflection of that nature and not something separate from it. To transgress the law is to sin against the One who gave it.
I don't have time to get into this too in depth right now (got to go to work), but I'll revive this thread when I have the time to respond more specifically.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 3, 2008 13:34:52 GMT -5
"The problems are not personal, but governmental"
I can see how that phrase would sound strange. John said God is Love, not God is Law. However I don't think God being "governmental" would be impersonal. The purpose of God being "governmental" would be His personal loving ways. It seems like a misleading contrast. I think Olson and Pratney meant "not personal" as in "not selfish". God's government is HIGHLY personal.
Sorry for butting in if that doesn't help!
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 3, 2008 15:25:36 GMT -5
Sorry for butting in if that doesn't help! We can use as much "butting in" as we can get. It is an "open forum", so please add if you have any more insight.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 3, 2008 17:24:31 GMT -5
thank you friend, Jesus gave a good example of what leadership (government) was all about when he washed his friends' feet. So God's law and Jesus washing feet both come from the same heart. Same ultimate motive.
Government is an impersonal sounding word for some people. Probably because we live in a cold, lonely world.
God showing his justice through the cross comes from the same heart that was willing to die on the cross.
Psa 85:10 Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace kissed each other.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 3, 2008 17:44:58 GMT -5
This is an exert from my atonement booklet that deals with these three questions:
1. What is forgiveness?
2. What are the problems in forgiveness that God needed to overcome?
3. What are not the problems that God needed to overcome?
THE NATURE OF FORGIVENESS
The Bible uses words such as forgiveness, pardon, and remission. These words are used in both the Old and the New Testament to describe God letting our sins go as if they had not been committed, letting our sins go unpunished, passing over them as if they never existed (Ex. 20:7; 34:7; 34:9; Lev. 4:20, 26; 19:22; Nu. 14:18; 14:19-20; 15:25-26; 30:5, 8, 12; I Kin. 2:9; 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 50; II Chr. 6:21-39; 7:14; Neh. 1:3; 9:17; Ps. 19:12-13; 25:11; 103:3; 130:4; Is. 55:7; Jer. 30:11; 31:34; 33:8; 36:3; 46:28; Joel 4:21; Dan. 9:9-10; 9:19; Amos. 7:2; Mt. 6:12, 14, 15; 9:2, 5, 6; Mk. 2:5-10; Lk. 5:20-24; 12:31-32 (Mk. 3:28-30); 18:21, 27, 32, 35; Mk. 4:12; 11:25-26; Lk. 7:47-49; 11:4; 12:10; 17:3-4; 23:34; Jn. 20:23; Acts 8:22; Rom. 4:7; Jas. 5:15; I Jn. 1:9; 2:12).
The word “aphesis”, for example, is translated as “remission” (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43; Heb. 9:22; 10:18) and as “forgiveness” (Mk. 3:29; Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). “Aphesis” means pardon, letting sins go as if they had never been committed; passing over sins or passing them by as if they didn’t exist or as if they never occurred; remitting the penalty that is justly deserved.
Forgiveness of sins is when the punishment of sin is set aside, when God allows the sins themselves to go unpunished, letting them go as if they were not committed. Forgiveness is when a claim is relaxed or a penalty is dispensed with (1 Chro. 21:7-15; 2 Chro. 12:5-7, 32:26; 2 Sam. 24:16; 24:25; Num. 16:46-48; Ps. 78:38; 106:23, 45; Jer. 18:8; Eze. 20:17; Micah 7:18-19; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; Joel 2:13-14). It is when God turns from His wrath or anger (Deut. 13:17; Num. 25:4; Josh. 7:26; Ps. 78:38; 85:3-4; Joel 2:13; Jonah 3:9; Isa. 12:1; Jer. 3:12; Dan. 9:16; Hos. 11:9; 14:4).
Forgiveness of sins is when God does not punish sins (Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:22). The pardon of a debt is when the payment for a debt is remanded instead of demanded (Matt 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42). Pardoning sins, passing over transgression, delighting in mercy, is one of God’s glorious attributes (Micah 7:18). Punishment and forgiveness cannot co-exist, they are opposites (but atonement and forgiveness can co-exist). The pardon of a debt and the payment of a debt are opposites (Matt. 18:23-35). Mercy is the opposite of judgment (Heb. 10:27-30; Jas. 2:13), mercy is when retributive judgment is set aside, when judgment is relaxed, when crimes are pardoned instead of punished, when God passes over sins as if they didn’t exist, as if they never occurred.
While God grants clemency or amnesty for the past (Rom. 3:25, 2 Pet. 1:9), He never grants immunity or impunity (Matt. 18:25-35; Rom. 2:9; 8:13; Heb. 10:26-31). His laws are good, they must be obeyed. God gives no license for future sin (Rom. 6:1-2; Heb. 10:26-31; Jude 1:4).
Forgiveness and justification are synonymous terms, the Bible uses them interchangeably (Lk. 18:14; Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:24; 5:9; Tit. 3:7). The Bible contrasts justification with condemnation (Prov. 17:15; Matt. 12:37). Condemnation is the execution of punishment, justification is the setting aside of punishment and treating one as if they were just. Justification is being treated just as if you had never sinned. To be justified by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24) or justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9) or justified by His grace (Rom 3:24) or to have the remission of sins through His blood (Matt. 26:28; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) are essentially the same thing. Justification and remission are different expressions of the same concept, when God set’s aside the punishment that sinners deserve and treats them as if they were always just and righteous. When God forgives an individual by His grace, through the atonement, He set’s aside their punishment and does not hold their past sins against them (Rom. 3:25; 2 Pet. 1:9), He treats them as if they were righteous (Rom. 4:6-8). Forgiveness is simply when the penalty of the sin is remitted, when sins are let go as if they were not committed, when God acts as if they never occurred or even existed. Forgiveness in the Moral Government of God is when moral crimes or moral rebellion is graciously pardoned. And gracious pardon is the remission of the penalty for past sins.
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS OF FORGIVENESS
Every atonement view must ask this fundamental question, what is keeping God from forgiving sin? You must first pin point the obstacle that needed to be overcome before you can analyze the design of the remedy. What was necessary for God to forgive sin must be answered by the means of the atonement. The atonement is designed to overcome the obstacles of pardon or remission. So what is the problem the atonement overcomes?
The purpose of punishment is to enforce the law and to uphold the Government (Dan. 6:7-16; Esther 1:16-22), lest the law fall into contempt and rebellion spreads. Since forgiveness is the setting aside of punishment, the difficulty of forgiveness is that the influence of the law and Government is severely weakened by forgiveness since the violated law is not vindicated or enforced and the Government rebelled against is not upheld. The result of this is that rebellion is encouraged and sinners are strengthened in their disobedience (Ecc. 8:11). If a law is violated and a crime against the community is committed, if there is no punishment inflicted or no atonement made, the law is not being vindicated, upheld, supported, valued, or enforced. If there is no punishment or no atonement, there is nothing to say that the law was right and violating it was wrong, there would be no deterrent from future rebellion, but future disobedience would be encouraged under the impression that you can break the law with impunity. And God is absolutely dedicated to His law since it is designed for the well-being of all (Deut 5:29; 6:3; 6:24; 10:13; Jer. 7:6, 23; 32:39; Matt. 19:19; 22:37-39; Mk. 12:30-33; Lk. 6:9; 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 6:3; Jas. 2:8).
We see the problems of forgiveness in the situation of Daniel and the king (Dan. 6:7-16). When Daniel violated the law, the lions den was a punishment designed to enforce and uphold the law. The king sought for a means to forgive Daniel and remit his penalty but he could find no such way. He could find no adequate atonement by which the penalty could be set aside. If the king remitted the penalty, without atonement, he would not be enforcing his laws and rebellion could break out among the people. If the king merely showed favor to Daniel, he would be considered unjust for his partiality and thereby weakening the influence of his governing by destroying the confidence his subjects had in him. And if the king merely abrogated the law, or repealed the penalty, he would be saying that the law and penalty was wrong, he was wrong for issuing it, and thereby again destroying the confidence that his subjects have in his abilities to govern. The king found no adequate atonement by which the penalty could be remitted, by which He could pardon Daniel and grant the remission of his rebellion. The king was forced execute the penalty, against his personal desire, or else his government would collapse. He found no substitute that could replace the punishment Daniel was facing, which would allow the king to set aside the punishment while at the same time upholding the authority and influence of his laws. When crimes are forgiven, or penalties are remitted, without an atonement made which enforces and upholds the law, there is serious governmental damage done. Confidence in government is weakened, its influence is destroyed. The law is not vindicated, upheld, or enforced if pardon is given without atonement being made.
These are very serious governmental problems that need to be overcome if God is going to forgive sin without overthrowing His Government or abrogating His laws, and thereby endangering the good of the people that He loves, whose welfare His laws are designed to protect and whose well-being His laws are designed to promote. These are the problems of forgiveness that the atonement is designed to overcome. The shedding of blood declares and expresses the righteousness God, upholding the just laws of God, so that He can safely remit the penalty of our sin (Rom 3:25-26). This demonstration and declaration of His righteousness through blood shed, publicly showing that God values and enforces His laws, is absolutely necessary if God is going to pardon crime without damaging His Government. Public Justice (well-being of creation) would surely suffer if retributive justice (punishment) was set aside without an adequate atonement to substitute its place in fulfilling its purpose. Retributive justice can only be set aside if public justice is upheld by an alternative means, by a substitute.
WHAT ARE NOT THE PROBLEMS OF FORGIVENESS
The problems that need to be overcome are governmental, not personal. Just as the situation of the king and Daniel (Dan. 6:7-16), God does not have any vindictiveness or sadistic desire that needs to be gratified or satisfied (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God is already wanting to forgive (Ps. 86:5), He is already willing to pardon (Neh. 9:17), whenever it is safe for all for Him to do so (2 Pet. 3:9). God personally prefers mercy over judgment (Isa. 28:21; Micah 7:18; Jn. 8:10-11; Jas. 2:13). He is reluctant to execute judgment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; 2 Pet. 3:9).
The problems of forgiveness arise from the government of God and not the person of God, from God as a Ruler and not as an offended individual. The person of God did not need a bloody sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 51:16-17; Prov. 21:3; Hos. 6:6; Matt. 9:13; 12:7). The reason the atonement was given in the first place was because God already had a disposition of love and mercy (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8). It is not that Calvary gave us love and mercy, but that love and mercy gave us Calvary. The atonement allows God, who holds the Office of Universal Ruler or King, to set aside His governmental wrath and extend gracious pardon to offenders, without compromising His government or abrogated His laws.
Individuals can forgive without atonement, but Rulers cannot forgive without an atonement being made, without virtually abrogating their laws and weakening their government. When governmental laws are violated, a price must be paid (either blood shed must be offered or eternal hell fire must be suffered), or else the law is not upheld, its value is not declared, obedience is not secured, and therefore the law is abrogated and government is destroyed.
Person to person relations do not require atonements for forgiveness. We are to forgive our neighbors for their trespasses without requiring atonements from our neighbors (Matt 18:35). But government to criminal relations does require atonement for forgiveness (Heb 9:22). But the nature of both governmental forgiveness and personal forgiveness are the same (Matt. 6:12), consisting in letting sins go as if they had not been committed, acting as if they never occurred or ever existed, relaxing a claim, setting aside any penalty.
So the problems of forgiveness, which the atonement needed to overcome, were not any vindictiveness in God which needed satisfaction, nor any sadistic desire within the Godhead that needed gratification. The problems of forgiveness were governmental and not personal, if punishment was going to be set aside, an adequate atonement must substituted the punishment, to enforce God’s laws and uphold God’s government. Retributive justice (judgment) can only be set aside when public justice (well-being of all) is upheld and enforced by laws through the atonement.
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT
This question really deals with the necessity of the atonement.
1. Did God have any personal vindictiveness that needed satisfaction?
2. Did God need to publicly show His regard for His law in order to pardon transgression without encouraging sin in His Kingdom?
My answer is #2.
Here is some further teaching on the necessity of the atonement:
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT ILLUSTRATED
THE GOVERNMENTAL NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 3, 2008 23:13:35 GMT -5
Hey guys (and gal), I haven't read through the last few posts fully but I thought of a couple scriptures at work today that I think show that sin is a personal problem to God and not merely a governmental problem. Consider the 2nd Commandment for a minute. Look at what God says: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6 NASB italics mine) Is the sin of idolatry merely a governmental problem or is it personal to God? Isn't it clear that the expression "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" refers to a personal relationship and not merely a governmental relationship of a Ruler to His subjects? What about the 3rd Commandment? "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." (Exodus 20:7 NASB) Can it really be said that this sin is merely a governmental problem? Let me direct you to one more passage: Ezekiel 16. Please stop and open up the Sacred Scriptures and read through this passage. Seriously!... After reading this how can anyone hold that mankind's sin problem is merely a governmental problem and not a personal problem? The Moral Government view of the atonement fails to grasp the nature of sin and the nature of God and thus falls short. There's alot of truth in this view, but it is not sufficient. I will do my best to respond to the objections and distortions of the Penal Satisfaction view as I get time. P.S. If you haven't read Ezekiel 16 yet, then go get your Bible! P.S.S. Jesse, thanks for posting the videos. I haven't watched them yet, but I intend to. Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 4, 2008 8:33:03 GMT -5
Sin is definitely a personal problem to God. God is personally against sin. That is why God created a government that is against sin, because God is personally against sin. God's law is a refection of His character.
But the question is not whether sin is a personal problem. The question is whether forgiveness is a personal problem to God. This is a very important distinction.
Does God have any personal vindictiveness that He needed to overcome, or that the atonement needed to satisfy? Or was God, before the atonement, already willing to forgive, but only when it is safe to His Kingdom for Him to do so?
Did the atonement make God willing to forgive? Or did God, wanting to forgive, make the atonement?
"The problems that need to be overcome are governmental, not personal. Just as the situation of the king and Daniel (Dan. 6:7-16), God does not have any vindictiveness or sadistic desire that needs to be gratified or satisfied (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God is already wanting to forgive (Ps. 86:5), He is already willing to pardon (Neh. 9:17), whenever it is safe for all for Him to do so (2 Pet. 3:9). God personally prefers mercy over judgment (Isa. 28:21; Micah 7:18; Jn. 8:10-11; Jas. 2:13). He is reluctant to execute judgment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; 2 Pet. 3:9)." From my atonement booklet
Clearly, God was personally wanting to forgive sinners, but He faced governmental problems in forgiving. God's problems in forgiveness were not personal, but governmental. There was no personal unwillingness, bitterness, or vindictiveness in God holding Him back from forgiving. It was His love, care, and concern for His Kingdom that holds Him back from forgiving sinners without an atonement. If God forgave without an atonement, His law would fall into contempt throughout His Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 4, 2008 8:52:34 GMT -5
The reason God punishes sin, is the reason why the atonement was necessary.
- If God punishes disobedience for personal pleasure and sadistic satisfaction, then God required the atonement in order to get personal pleasure and sadistic satisfaction.
Does God get personal pleasure or sadistic satisfaction in punishing sin? No. Does God get personal pleasure or sadistic satisfaction in the atonement? No. Just as God does not take any sadistic pleasure or vindictive satisfaction in punishment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10), neither is the Godhead gratified or satisfied in any personal vindictive or sadistic sense when it comes to the atonement (Ps. 51:16-17; Heb 10:6; 10:8).
- If God punishes disobedience out of a governmental concern for His Kingdom, then God required the atonement out of a governmental concern for His Kingdom.
Whatever is God's reason for punishing sin, is the reason God required the atonement. So what is the reason God punishes sin?
THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT
God does not punish for the sake of punishing. Punishments have a purpose or a reason behind them. Punishments are a means to an end and not an end themselves. The purpose of punishment is law enforcement (Dan. 6:14-16; Esther 1:15-22), or public justice. Laws consist of precepts (commands) and sanctions (punishments). A precept without a sanction is mere advice but not law. Laws are not upheld, enforced, or vindicated, unless there are punishments. When punishments are not executed to enforce the law, lawlessness and rebellion result (Ecc. 8:11). Punishments are designed to be undesirable. They are deliberately painful and miserable so that they are feared and dreaded. The threatening of the sanction is meant to secure obedience to the precept. Punishments are designed to be public examples unto others (1 Cor. 10:5-6; Jude 1:7) that the severity of them will cause others to fear to follow in their bad example of disobedience (Rom. 11:20-22). It is not good to accept or tolerate wickedness (Prov. 18:5; Rom. 1:32). Punishments exist to protect the public; punishments (retributive justice) serves public justice (well-being of all) (Rom. 13:1-6).
Justice requires that the punishment fits the crime. The degree of punishment declares the value of the law. In human government, punishment is determined by the value of the law that was violated. If a man robs a house, he may serve a few years in jail. But if a man murders, capital punishment could be executed. Strict justice, or just punishment, which is the opposite of mercy or forgiveness, consists in “an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth…” (Exo. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut 19:21; Matt. 5:38) so the punishment fits the crime, matching the transgression. The degree of punishment declares the value of the law that was violated. Specifically, the degree of punishment declares the value of the object the law sought to protect, which value was sinned against by transgression. Sinning against God and breaking His good laws is of such a horrific nature, the value of the well-being of God and everyone else is such, that the only adequate punishment is the eternal lake of fire (Matt. 2:46; 2 Thes. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:9; Jude 1:7; Rev. 21:8) unless atonement is made that can just as equally declare the value of the violated law, to vindicate the rightness of the law, and be such an influence as to enforce the precept of the law. Prisons are meant to be places of isolation, to protect the law abiding citizens from dangerous criminals. Prisons are designed to remove individuals which are a threat to the well-being of others, to remove those who would harm others if unrestrained or at liberty. God will separate the wicked from the righteous (Matt. 13:48-50; 25:32-46), not allowing the wicked to enter Heaven to disturb its blessedness (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19:21; Rev. 21:8, 22:14-15). Hell is the prison of the universe, a place of outer darkness (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30).
Very simply, punishments uphold and enforce the law, declaring the value of the law, also declaring that the law was right and violating it was wrong, thereby vindicating the violated law, seeking to deter future rebellion and disobedience, or seeking to secure future submission and obedience from the rest of the subjects of the government. Laws and punishments are designed to promote the highest well-being of all. Without the execution of the penalty, government would collapse, unless atonement is made which substitutes the execution of the penalty, enforcing and upholding the law just as equally as the execution of the punishment would have done.
WHAT THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT IS NOT Punishments must not be seen as personal vindictiveness on the part of the punisher (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). Just as precepts are rooted in love, so also sanctions are rooted in love. Both law and punishment is rooted in God’s benevolence. Even in family government punishment is inflicted out of love (Prov. 13:24, 22:15, 23:13, 29:15). The prosecution of the law through punishments is designed to enforce good laws designed for the well-being of the community (Rom. 13:4). That is the motive of a good prosecutor. Punishments are not designed to give sadistic pleasure or vindictive satisfaction to the punisher. Punishments are governmental not personal; they are governmental necessities, not personal vindictiveness or sadistic satisfactions. Punishments are designed for governmental vindication, to vindicate the violated laws, not for personal vindictiveness or sadistic desire. Laws are designed to promote the well-being of the community. Punishments are designed to enforce those laws. Personal injury against an individual is prosecuted in a court procedure as a crime against the community as a whole. For example, “The State of Connecticut vs. Mr. John Smith.” The prosecution of a crime is not personal revenge for personal injury. Crime is treated as a matter of the State, as that which endangers the whole of the community, as a violation of governmental law. Prosecution of a crime is in fact care for the community, being governmental not personal.
We see this in the case of Daniel and king Darius (Dan. 6:7-16). Daniel was found in violation of a royal decree (vs. 10-12). The consequence, designed to uphold and enforce the decree, was being cast in a lions den (vs. 7, 12, 16). Though king Darius did not personally desire this consequence upon Daniel, but was actually unwilling that he should perish (vs. 14), he had to enforce his law or else rebellion would result (vs. 16). The king did not execute the penalty for any sadistic satisfaction or any vindictive gratification. It was not any retaliation for any personal injury; it was not any personal revenge. It was governmental, not personal, it was to uphold his government and secure obedience to his law.
We also see this governmental concern in the situation of king Ahasuerus and queen Vashti (Esther 1:16-22). The queen disobeyed a command of the king and therefore transgressed the law (vs. 12). A concern within the government of the king arose that if Vashti was not punished, rebellion would spread through the land (15-18). So the king, out of a governmental necessity and not a personal vindictiveness, punished his own queen to enforce and uphold his laws and protect his subjects from further lawlessness and rebellion (vs. 19-22).
God Himself takes no sadistic pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God’s wrath is governmental, designed to enforce and uphold His laws, since further rebellion results when punishment for rebellion is not executed (Ecc. 8:11). God’s wrath is not personal vindictiveness designed to gratify any sadistic desire in God. God is not willing that any should perish but that all men return to obedience unto His moral law (2 Pet. 3:9). So God wants to find a way to set aside our punishment while at the same time upholding and enforcing His law. God prefers mercy over judgment (Jn. 8:10-11; Jas. 2:13) so that judgment is considered His strange work (Isa. 28:21). And God commands that we never be malicious or vindictive ourselves (Matt. 5:44; Lk. 6:27; 6:36; Rom. 12:19).
God fills the office of Executor, prepared to revenge all disobedience to His moral law (2 Cor. 10:6), having the authority to repay and inflict vengeance upon evil men (Rom. 12:19). This vengeance is governmental, punishment is necessary to support the authority and influence of the law. The 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary properly and precisely defined vengeance as, “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.” Punishments are not inflicted for the punishment’s sake; punishments are a mean’s to an end and not the end itself, being executed upon transgressors “for the support of the laws”.
God loves judgment (Isa. 61:8) and is displeased and grieved when there is no judgment (Isa. 59:15) because just government (laws and punishments) are designed to promote the well-being of the creation that He loves (Rom. 13:4). The righteous also rejoice in judgment (Ps. 58:10; Rev. 6:10; 18:20; 19:1-3). Laws and punishments are designed to promote public justice. The very purpose of retributive justice is to promote public justice. The law of God is good and the punishments prescribed to enforce them are good. So God does not kill or execute for personal pleasure as some selfish, sadistic, sick tyrant. God executes wrath upon the wicked because He’s a benevolent ruler, who is set on upholding and enforcing His laws which are designed to promote the well-being of the creation He deeply loves. Wrath must be understood as governmental, rooted in benevolence, as opposed to personal, rooted in malevolence or maliciousness. The reason for His wrath is governmental, not personal, it is necessary to maintain good government.
WHAT AN ATONEMENT IS NOT
The atonement was not a satisfaction to any vindictiveness in God’s person, or gratification to a sadistic nature in God. It was because God was loving and gracious in the first place that He sent His Son to atone for our sins (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 1 Jn 4:10). If God wanted personal vindictive satisfaction, He would have eternally punished the sinner and not have sent His Son in the first place. Retributive justice strictly required the eternal punishment of only the guilty sinner (Eze. 18:4, 20; Prov. 17:15, 26). But the Father was pleased and satisfied with the atonement (Isa. 53:10-11), but not in a sadistic or vindictive way. Remember that the purpose of punishment is not for any sadistic pleasure or for any vindictive satisfaction in the punisher (Eze 18:32; 33:11; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). Punishment is governmental not personal. The purpose of punishment is law enforcement, to uphold the laws, to enforce the laws, to vindicate the law, and to declare the value of the law (Ecc. 8:11; Dan. 6:14-16; Esther 1:16-22). Punishment is to uphold the Government and thereby protect the public, not to satisfy any personal vindictive revenge. Punishment is a governmental necessity. So the atonement was not God seeking any personal revenge or retaliation. God did not have to punish Himself in order to forgive men. He simply needed to uphold His law while granting pardon. For an atonement to adequately substitute the punishment, it must equally uphold the law, enforce the law, vindicate the law, and declare the value of the law, just as equally as the punishment would have done. That is why the blood of Jesus Christ is an adequate substitute for the eternal punishment of sinners in hell, because of the sinless purity of His character and because of the dignity of His person. Therefore the price of Christ’s blood is more valuable than the price sinners owed; the price of His blood far out weights the price of our debt. The price of Christ’s blood is a substitute to the payment of our debt, the cross of Calvary is a substitute for the eternal sentence of hell, and the suffering of Christ is substituted for the suffering that sinners deserve.
Just as God does not take any sadistic pleasure or vindictive satisfaction in punishment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10), neither is the Godhead gratified or satisfied in any personal vindictive or sadistic sense when it comes to the atonement (Ps. 51:16-17; Heb 10:6; 10:8). The way that wicked men treated His Son did not itself please God (Mk. 12:6-9; Lk. 20:13-16; 1 Thes. 2:15). The satisfaction (Isa. 53:11) and the pleasure (Isa. 53:10) which God the Father has in the atonement is not sadistic or personal vindictiveness, but rather this satisfaction and pleasure is because God delights in public justice, rejoicing that His laws are being enforced and upheld through the public demonstration of Christ’s bloody sacrifice since laws are designed for the well-being of all. He was rejoicing and delighting that mercy and pardon can now be granted to repentant rebels who have violated His moral law. This is the reason for the satisfaction and pleasure God the Father had in the suffering of the Son (Isa. 53:10-11). Just as punishment is a means to an end and not the end itself and therefore God rejoices in justice, not for the pain as an end but as a means, not for its own sake, but because of what it brings. So also the blood atonement is a means to an end, and not the end itself. Therefore the pleasure God gets from the blood shed is not in the blood as an end, or in blood shed for its own sake, but as a means to an end, delighting in it because of what it brings. It’s the mercy and not the sacrifice that God desired (Hos. 6:6; Matt 9:13; 12:7).
THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT QUOTES
“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 QUOTES
“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 ARE THE PROBLEMS OF FORGIVENESS? QUOTES
“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 QUOTES
"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)
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Dec 4, 2008 9:47:12 GMT -5
From a different vantage poin;
In Romans 3 the word translated “propitiation” has to do with the “Mercy Seat” as it is translated in Hebrews 9. In 1 John, it carries the meaning of appeasement or acceptable offering. When the blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat of the Ark, it signified that through death, life was given. This was pointing to the day in which Jesus would join Himself to humanity, live the life of obedience we were intended to live, suffer and die in order to take death and hell captive and take up His life again in order to redeem a people for Himself. He joined Himself to the living the incarnation, conquered sin in His life, He bridged the gap between the dead and God when He died and descended into Hades (Abraham’s Bosom), He conquered death and Hades in His resurrection and became the first-fruits from the grave, leading the way to the presence of the Father. This is why even babies who die without having ever sinned still need a Savior; they need to be redeemed from death and Hades. The gospel is about God establishing a Kingdom of faithful citizens, not satisfying self imposed governmental requirements.
From what I can tell, this is the earliest form of the Ransom view of the atonement. Some angels and the first humans having chosen to follow Satan’s lead in rebellion, God allowed Satan to establish his kingdom working in conjunction with the free will of all moral agents. At the same time God established Hades as the intermediate state of being, as not all chose to follow Satan’s lead. Those who die in their sins, await judgment in torment. The faithful who die seeking God’s redemption, await their redemption in paradise. Jesus joined God to humanity and began to further establish His Kingdom, here on Earth and to proclaim victory in Hades, leading the way to the presence of the Father. Once again, only those who chose to follow their leader will share in their kingdom. We follow Jesus into the Kingdom of God, the world follows Satan to his ultimate destruction in hell. As the kingdoms are being established, the battle lines are clearly drawn. Jesus left no question as to how to distinguish between kingdoms when He called us to faithfully follow Him. This is why morality under the premise of a false god or religion is useless. Only Jesus can lead us into the eternal Kingdom of God, as He is the only one who has made the trip full circle.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Dec 4, 2008 21:18:13 GMT -5
The government will be upon His shoulders.
His Kingdom will come, therefore He must be a King. Our King of kings is a noble and loving ruler desiring the good of all. Unfortunately, most are rebels outside of His Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 5, 2008 9:09:45 GMT -5
From a different vantage poin; In Romans 3 the word translated “propitiation” has to do with the “Mercy Seat” as it is translated in Hebrews 9. In 1 John, it carries the meaning of appeasement or acceptable offering. When the blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat of the Ark, it signified that through death, life was given. This was pointing to the day in which Jesus would join Himself to humanity, live the life of obedience we were intended to live, suffer and die in order to take death and hell captive and take up His life again in order to redeem a people for Himself. He joined Himself to the living the incarnation, conquered sin in His life, He bridged the gap between the dead and God when He died and descended into Hades (Abraham’s Bosom), He conquered death and Hades in His resurrection and became the first-fruits from the grave, leading the way to the presence of the Father. This is why even babies who die without having ever sinned still need a Savior; they need to be redeemed from death and Hades. The gospel is about God establishing a Kingdom of faithful citizens, not satisfying self imposed governmental requirements. From what I can tell, this is the earliest form of the Ransom view of the atonement. Some angels and the first humans having chosen to follow Satan’s lead in rebellion, God allowed Satan to establish his kingdom working in conjunction with the free will of all moral agents. At the same time God established Hades as the intermediate state of being, as not all chose to follow Satan’s lead. Those who die in their sins, await judgment in torment. The faithful who die seeking God’s redemption, await their redemption in paradise. Jesus joined God to humanity and began to further establish His Kingdom, here on Earth and to proclaim victory in Hades, leading the way to the presence of the Father. Once again, only those who chose to follow their leader will share in their kingdom. We follow Jesus into the Kingdom of God, the world follows Satan to his ultimate destruction in hell. As the kingdoms are being established, the battle lines are clearly drawn. Jesus left no question as to how to distinguish between kingdoms when He called us to faithfully follow Him. This is why morality under the premise of a false god or religion is useless. Only Jesus can lead us into the eternal Kingdom of God, as He is the only one who has made the trip full circle. Blessings, Joe Joe, you have definitely articulated the Early Church's view better then I could have. Great synopsis brother!
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Dec 5, 2008 13:12:16 GMT -5
You were the one that got me started on the Ransom view It took awhile to sort through what the RV evolved into and about a years worth of reading the Fathers for several hours per day in order to figure their actual position out, but it has been well worth it. Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 5, 2008 13:34:57 GMT -5
Hey Joe,
I've only recently begun to read through the ANF set. I'm still on Justin Martyr's letter to Trypho. So far I've only bought the first 2 books in the set but I'm hoping to pick up a couple more for Christmas. Anyway, I was wondering which of the early fathers has made the biggest impression on you?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Dec 5, 2008 23:58:25 GMT -5
Hey Joe, I've only recently begun to read through the ANF set. I'm still on Justin Martyr's letter to Trypho. So far I've only bought the first 2 books in the set but I'm hoping to pick up a couple more for Christmas. Anyway, I was wondering which of the early fathers has made the biggest impression on you? Steve I guess that depends on which day you ask me and what I am focussing on at the time. Justin is great provided that you understand he had a thoroughly pagan audience and was using Greek philosophy as a tool to propagate the gospel. Ignatius is great, as is Mathetes. Discovering the context in which each is writing is often the key to getting all you can from their epistles. Check out the website below. You can read all you want for free on-line. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html
|
|