|
Post by biblesays on Apr 20, 2011 11:07:48 GMT -5
Here's a quote by an Arminian who's arguing in favor of the Calvinistic view of the atonement (minus the limited aspect). He's trying to get around the rebuttal of double jeopardy or double punishment. Tell me what you guys think and how you would respond:
Some use the human reasoning that if Jesus took all our sins upon himself, then there would be no way we could be lost for our own sins since Jesus already took care of those sins. Not surprisingly, this is the same basic argument that Calvinists make when they say that if Jesus died for everybody (not just the elect), then that means all will be saved, because how could someone be lost for whom Jesus died?, why would a sin be punished twice? One reply we make in debate on this point is that a man can be punished in this life for his sin (Hebrews 12:5-11), but that doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t also be punished eternally for the same sin. In a similar vein, consider also God’s punishment of Assyria and Babylon for their wickedness (Isaiah 10:12, Jeremiah 50:18). This temporal punishment wouldn’t necessarily preclude their ensuing eternal punishment would it? The argument isn’t sound in either case.
When we ask God for forgiveness of a sin, will he continue to punish us for that sin even though he's forgiven us of that sin? Would this contradict the concept of forgiveness?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 26, 2011 9:38:56 GMT -5
Hi biblesays,
Double jeopardy is irrelevant to the idea of an atonement because an atonement is not punishment. Atonement is rather a substitute or replacement for punishment. Punishment is when the penalty of the law is executed upon the one who broke the law, the transgressor. The atoning sacrifice is not "punished" by definition. A sacrifice is sacrificed but not punished. Atonement allows for punishment to be conditionally set aside.
To say that the Lord was punished in our place could be used as a metaphoric way of describing His atoning suffering and death. But He was not literally punished. So any man can certainly be punished for his sins in the end if he does not meet the conditions of pardon. It is not double jeopardy.
The chastisement referred to in Hebrews 12 was "for [their] profit, that [they] might be partakers of His holiness". But the lake of fire is not for the profit and sanctification of transgressors.
I don't understand the relationship between the government of heaven and the governments of the earth. It sure seems that we can deserve mortal punishments even though we have been pardoned from eternal punishment. But I don't understand this well enough to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by biblesays on Apr 26, 2011 14:21:16 GMT -5
Hi biblesays, Double jeopardy is irrelevant to the idea of an atonement because an atonement is not punishment. Atonement is rather a substitute or replacement for punishment. Punishment is when the penalty of the law is executed upon the one who broke the law, the transgressor. The atoning sacrifice is not "punished" by definition. A sacrifice is sacrificed but not punished. Atonement allows for punishment to be conditionally set aside. To say that the Lord was punished in our place could be used as a metaphoric way of describing His atoning suffering and death. But He was not literally punished. So any man can certainly be punished for his sins in the end if he does not meet the conditions of pardon. It is not double jeopardy. The chastisement referred to in Hebrews 12 was "for [their] profit, that [they] might be partakers of His holiness". But the lake of fire is not for the profit and sanctification of transgressors. I don't understand the relationship between the government of heaven and the governments of the earth. It sure seems that we can deserve mortal punishments even though we have been pardoned from eternal punishment. But I don't understand this well enough to explain it. Thanks for the reply Ben. I think I'm where you're at. I understand the nature of the atonement and how it substitutes the penalty but I'm trying to understand a bit more about the heavenly and earthly government so that I can explain it in a more appropriate fashion. I believe it's a bit difficult to explain, without going into great detail, how God can forgive us of the eternal consequences of a sin and yet explain why he will still proceed to punish us in this life for that same sin. I read an article written somewhere, though I cannot remember where, that touched on four different types of forgiveness. (Wish I could remember where I read it.) However, concerning Heb. 12:5 the answer that I gave was that the chastisement, or punishment, which the Lord sends upon his children is to "reprove" them. Thus, the child of God who sins, can be punished in order to procure the restoration of his character. However, I might go a bit further to say that when the child of God sincerely repents and confesses his sin that the punishment ceases even though the existing chain of consequences may continue. After all, Heb. 12 says that he deals with us "as sons" and Luke 15:11-32 demonstrates how the Father deals with his children that have repented and who seek to restore their lives. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 3, 2011 19:55:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Ben. I think I'm where you're at. I understand the nature of the atonement and how it substitutes the penalty but I'm trying to understand a bit more about the heavenly and earthly government so that I can explain it in a more appropriate fashion. I believe it's a bit difficult to explain, without going into great detail, how God can forgive us of the eternal consequences of a sin and yet explain why he will still proceed to punish us in this life for that same sin. I read an article written somewhere, though I cannot remember where, that touched on four different types of forgiveness. (Wish I could remember where I read it.) However, concerning Heb. 12:5 the answer that I gave was that the chastisement, or punishment, which the Lord sends upon his children is to "reprove" them. Thus, the child of God who sins, can be punished in order to procure the restoration of his character. However, I might go a bit further to say that when the child of God sincerely repents and confesses his sin that the punishment ceases even though the existing chain of consequences may continue. After all, Heb. 12 says that he deals with us "as sons" and Luke 15:11-32 demonstrates how the Father deals with his children that have repented and who seek to restore their lives. What do you think? Sorry to leave you hanging for so long. I still don't understand this topic well enough to say much about it. I think if someone understood the purpose of our governments and could compare/contrast that with the purpose of judgment day, then they could see why it could be necessary for a man to submit to mortal punishment even though he had faith that God would pardon him on judgment day. If someone understood this topic, then I think they could explain eternal judgment in a way that was very easy to understand.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jun 23, 2011 11:42:06 GMT -5
Atonement (not Substitutional) is instead of justice; Atonement satisfies God instead of justice because the one being atoned for must change in order for him to be forgiven.
The Atonement serves the same purpose as justice so that God can truly forgive us without the need for justice. The difference between the atonement and justice is that justice condemns the sinner while the atonement pardons/forgives the sinner. With justice, the sinner still receives judgment even though he repents. With the atonement, the sinner receives pardon/forgiveness only if he repents. It is in the same way that the justice of judgment clears the name of God of what we have done (sin); the atonement does the same with repentance.
|
|