|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 8/29/2008 3:33:15 PM
|
|
|
pinopolitan
Posts: 42
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Why doesn't He just forgive us, period? Why the cross?
< Message edited by pinopolitan -- 8/30/2008 6:13:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is forgiveness so costly for the Forgiver? - 8/29/2008 10:50:11 PM
|
|
|
sledmt
Posts: 185
Joined: 8/25/2008
Status: offline
|
Because God require everything.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is forgiveness so costly for the Forgiver? - 8/30/2008 7:13:29 PM
|
|
|
FolkSingerBlues
Posts: 557
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: online
|
Although I don't have a "pat" answer for this I will offer a comment.
This should make us begin to realize just how powerful sin is. It didn't take "a drop" of Jesus' blood, it took his life. If it just took a "drop" God would have just taken a "drop".
_____________________________
My New Blog site
Proof texting is a very dangerous thing...If we were given the Scriptures it was to humble us into realizing God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.
-Rich Mullins
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 8/31/2008 6:56:28 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1634
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pinopolitan
Why doesn't He just forgive us, period? Why the cross?
God's moral character and nature required the just punishment of sinners. All sinners deserve the holy and just wrath of God. I say with reverence that God could not "just forgive us," for His justice must be satisfied. The Lord Jesus Christ became our substitute; He who knew no sin became sin for us and He bore the penalty we deserved. God's wrath was satisfied through the Cross of Christ Jesus and therefore, those who are in Christ receive God's favor. God forgives justly (God is just and must remain consistent with His nature).
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26 NASB95)
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 8/31/2008 9:25:02 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 544
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Greetings pinopolitan,
quote:
Why doesn't He just forgive us, period? Why the cross?
He does forgive freely, but our salvation is about a whole lot more than just forgiveness. It is relationship.
God became Man that man might share in the divine nature of God our Father. The Father was not using the Son as a whipping boy for our sins.
God bless,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/1/2008 7:05:43 AM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1634
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gatolover
Greetings pinopolitan,
quote:
Why doesn't He just forgive us, period? Why the cross?
He does forgive freely, but our salvation is about a whole lot more than just forgiveness. It is relationship.
God became Man that man might share in the divine nature of God our Father. The Father was not using the Son as a whipping boy for our sins.
God bless,
gatolover
I agree that the end for which we are saved is not merely forgiveness (that is the means) but is relationship (to be brought to God, to know Him, enjoy Him and marvel at Him).
I also agree that "God became Man that man might share in the divine nature of God," but that does not answer the question, "why the cross?"
What do you mean by "whipping boy for our sins?" Why did the Lord Jesus Christ suffer and die on a cross to bring us into fellowship with Himself?
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/1/2008 4:25:34 PM
|
|
|
LastofAll
Posts: 37
Status: offline
|
When forgiveness is grieving, I always think on two points of scripture; in Matthew.18:23-35, that if God is willing to forgive me my million sins, then I ought to be willing to forgive someone for that one thing, or even when it is a person we are daily are in contact with, and perhaps has wronged me several times; still it could not total God´s forgiveness for all of my sins, and even if it were to surpass mine; I would just have to start over again with one. God deals with us exactly with fairness. Secondly, in II Corinthians.2:11; the one thing that Satan will not do, is forgive; therefore we have the advantage, not him, for when we forgive, it cuts off sin from proceeding to sin, and Satan looses another sin, because we forgave! That is great to know, and should cause us to rejoice in our hearts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/2/2008 10:43:19 AM
|
|
|
drfuss
Posts: 188
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
drfuss: I think Christ's example is a lesson for us, i.e. it is harder for us to forgive than it is to be forgiven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/3/2008 12:37:27 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1634
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drfuss
drfuss: I think Christ's example is a lesson for us, i.e. it is harder for us to forgive than it is to be forgiven.
I am curious on how that explains why the Cross of Christ was needed to bring about forgiveness.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/3/2008 12:51:08 PM
|
|
|
steve7150
Posts: 215
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why doesn't He just forgive us, period? Why the cross?
This is actually a great question and tough to answer because the bible nevers says why but it does give us hints.
In Lev 17.11 it says "the life is in the blood and there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood."
Also there are allusions that for sin to be exposed for what it is, it takes a life to pay for it.
I suspect there are some spiritual laws of justice we are not aware of and God will not break his own laws therefore for mankind's sins to be forgiven something greater must pay the price of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/3/2008 11:05:04 PM
|
|
|
sue244
Posts: 438
Joined: 6/7/2006
From: Colorado
Status: offline
|
Because God is Just and His Justice requiere retrubution for our sins. The doctrine of Justification is sadly lacking churches today which is why people have wrong ideas about the purpose of the Cross. Jesus was literally taking the our punishment for us. He died in the place of each and everyone of us. Now the question is can people accept that Jesus took their punishment for them or will they keep trying to work their way to heave by their 'good' works.
_____________________________
"Indeed I Tremble for this country when I reflect that God is Just and His Justice cannot Sleep Forever"
Jefferson
"Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/4/2008 5:31:24 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1634
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
Because God is Just and His Justice requiere retrubution for our sins. The doctrine of Justification is sadly lacking churches today which is why people have wrong ideas about the purpose of the Cross. Jesus was literally taking the our punishment for us. He died in the place of each and everyone of us. Now the question is can people accept that Jesus took their punishment for them or will they keep trying to work their way to heave by their 'good' works.
In my view, a person can never know the love of God outside of this understanding of the cross of Christ.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/5/2008 2:15:30 PM
|
|
|
pinopolitan
Posts: 42
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Amen!
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/7/2008 5:33:53 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/7/2008 7:11:47 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1634
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: emerging
Surehope and others -
I am sure you know that the view you espouse was invented by Anselm in the middle ages and was unheard of before that, yes? While the satisfaction theory (and this takes on a few flavors - one of justice, one of honor) offers us perhaps one window by which we can look at the atonement it is lacking if the other windows are not opened.
The predominant view for the church has been quite different from what Anselm (and most Western thinkers since) thought. Jesus died not to appease an upset or angry Father but because the Father so loved the world that he wished to save it - to free it from the grip of sin and death - in this view, Christ is Victor of the entire universe - his death broke the curse that hung over all humanity.
So much more can be said about this but a WONDERFUL book that should be required reading for every Christian is St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation of Christ. Written in the early 300's, this book articulates so well the need for God to put on flesh, come to us and die for us.
grace and peace.
Actually this view is found in the writtings of the apostle Paul; especially Romans. He speaks of wrath and propitiation, justice and punishment. The term "invented" shows a bias on your part, which is fine; we all have a bias one way or the other.
I agree that God so loved the world that He desired to save. But the question is, what did God have to do to save? Did His justice have to be met? Did His holiness and righteousness have to be kept intact? Was God actually just and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus? Yes. God remained just in the way that he justified those who justly should have been punished for their sins. Christ Jesus took our sins and the punishment that we deserved.
Blessings,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/8/2008 9:55:39 AM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/8/2008 10:08:34 AM
|
|
|
steve7150
Posts: 215
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
As I said at the outset - atonement is far more robust than any one theory can explain.
I agree with you emerging in that Christ's sacrifice seems to be for several reasons.
Paul said we have been bought for a price! Bought from whom? Is it Satan, or is it sin and death, or is it God's wrath?
The atonement demonstrated God's love for us in that while we were sinners he died for our sins.
Jesus said the greatest love is to lay down your life for someone, which he did.
Lev 17.11 says "life is in the blood and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Why? The bible never says!
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 9/8/2008 10:13:33 AM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/8/2008 10:20:27 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 216
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
A few comments on the different atonement theories - I personally prefer the substitution theory I will post later ....
Ransom from Satan Theory
In short, this theory proposes the value of Christ’s death on the cross was a payment to one of God’s creatures, Satan, for the souls of men. As Charles Hodge recounts, this was the prevalent theory of the early Church, including “Irenaeus, Origen, Theodoret, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Leo the Great, and others.” The point in the early Church was to address how man became released from the grip of Satan.
In 2Ti 2:26 Paul states, “and that they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will of that one.” Add to this scriptures indicating man without Christ is slave to sin (Jn 8:34), that those who sin have the devil as their father (Jn 8:44), verses indicating Satan is the Prince of the earth (Jn 12:31), and finally scripture indicating Christ’s work was to purchase men for himself (Tit 2:14). These scriptures, taken out of context and without reference to the rest of scripture indicating Christ’s work was a judgment of Satan, could lead one to believe the intent of the Messiah’s work was a payment to Satan. For our purposes, we will briefly review verses on purchasing the Church.
Scripture recounts “the Church of God which He has purchased” (Acts 20:28), and “bought with a price” (1Cor 6:20, cf. 7:23), a “purchased possession” (Eph 1:14). In 1Cor 6:20 and 7:23, “bought” is ηγορασθητε (egorasthete, from G59: ἀγοράζω; agorazo), which has a clear meaning of buying in the marketplace. Following this is the word for “price” in both verses. The Greek is τιμης (timez, from G5092: τιμή; time) which is the value placed on an item.
However, in Acts 20:28, “purchased” is περιεποιησατο (periepoiesato, from G4046: περιποιέω; peripoieo). After a review of the United Bible Societies’ (UBS) handbook on Acts and Robertson’s Word Pictures, Strong’s second, third, or fourth definitions should be taken for the meaning here. That is: “2. to reserve, to leave or keep safe, lay by. 3. to make to remain for one’s self. 4. to preserve for one’s self.” Thus “purchased” is slightly misleading, as this verse should lead one to see Christ’s action as reserving the Church for Himself. Although admittedly when vs28 states “with His own blood,” Luke obviously infers the reservation was made at a price paid by Christ’s blood. In this sense, using commercial language, one could say “which he has put on layaway for Himself with a down payment of His own blood.”
Acts 20:28 should be seen in context of Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, and Ro 8:23, 2Cor 1:22. Together, these verses effectively indicate the giving of the Holy Spirit is a seal (Eph 1:13, 4:30) on our soul to preserve us (Eph 1:14, 2Cor 1:22) for the day in which our bodies will be redeemed in glory and receive in full our adoption as children of God (Ro 8:23), that redemption having been paid by Christ’s blood (Acts 20:28).
To put these verses in context with substitution theory of atonement, it is obvious the purchase language indicates Christ has made a payment for the souls of men. But scripture clearly teaches this payment was made to God. That Christ now looks upon His Church as a purchased possession simply adds to the rich imagery of what the Gospel of John records Christ as saying, “And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.” This is true first because nothing created is strong enough to overcome the Creator (Col 1:16-17, cf. Ro 8:38-39 and Jn 10:28-29). Second, because their price has been paid. The value being the “priceless” (unable to set a price because of its infinite value) blood of Christ, such that neither “angels, nor principalities, nor powers, … nor any other creature … shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Oak Harbor, WA.: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1872; 1997), 2:564-566.
Strong, Exhaustive Concordance, “G59”; “G4046.”
Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles: UBS handbook series, [CD-ROM] available from Logos (New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), 395.
Robertson, Word Pictures, Acts 20:28.
John F. Walvoord, “The Person and Work of Christ, Part VIII: Christ in His Suffering and Death,” Bibliotheca Sacra 118 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (October 1961; 2002): 298.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/8/2008 10:24:22 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 216
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
A few comments on the different atonement theories - I personally prefer the substitution theory I will post later ....
The Commercial (Satisfaction) Theory
Anselm, in 1098 while the archbishop of Canterbury from 1093–1109, proposed in his treatise Why God Became Man that the traditional ransom to Satan theory of atonement was not accurate. Anselm’s theory became a catalyst during the Reformation for a fuller understanding of Christ’s work that resulted in the substitution theory of atonement.
In 1978 Professor John D. Hannah wrote a defense of Anselm’s ideas, also called the “satisfaction theory.” His basic premise was that Anselm used the feudal culture of his time to accurately express the singular topic surrounding the objective work of the atonement as it addresses God. It was not, in Hannah’s opinion, intended to provide an exhaustive treatment of the atonement. Hannah states, “Anselm is clear that satisfaction is rendered through a payment in death, but the exact legal transaction of the guilt and punishment of each individual is not broached. He simply does not develop the method of satisfaction beyond the generality of death.”
In spite of his theological breakthroughs, the problem does lie in the words Anselm uses to express his ideas. Anselm effectively relegates sin to simply robbing God of His honor by disobeying the will of God, and since God has been dishonored, He must find a way to restore that honor. As such, Anselm’s theory contains a shallow understanding of sin, Christ’s substitution for punishing sin, and the purpose of satisfying God. In addition, Anselm does not recognize the requirement for restitution of damages as seen in substitution theory.
Robert Letham, “In The Space Of Six Days: The Days Of Creation From Origen To The Westminster Assembly,” Westminster Theological Journal 61 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1999; 2002): 159.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Springfield, MA.: Merriam-Webster,1993; 1996), “Anselm.”
John D. Hannah, “Anselm on the Doctrine of Atonement,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (October 1978; 2002): 333.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Soteriology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 104 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (April 1947; 2002): 147,
Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1989; 1997), 320.
Walvoord, “Person and Work of Christ,” 299.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/8/2008 10:28:34 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 216
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
A few comments on the different atonement theories - I personally prefer the substitution theory I will post later ....
The Moral Influence and Example Theories
The Moral Influence and Example Theories seem to merge depending on who is discussing them. According to Robert Letham, Moral Influence seems to have a history first derived from Clement of Alexandria. According to D. L. Moody, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) picked up the theme as a reaction to Anselm. This brought Bernard of Clairvaux to secure Abelard’s condemnation by the church, for as he put it: “[Abelard believes that Christ lived and died] for no other purpose than that he might teach men how to live by his words and example and point them by his passion and death to what limits their love should go.” Charles Hodge is willing to concede the Moral Influence theory does identify the need to be reconciled to God, but again, the means of reconciliation is simply through the love Christ showed on the cross that should move one’s own heart to turn toward God.
However, Letham disagrees with Bernard, indicating claims against Abelard are due to a single commentary on Romans 3:19-26 wherein Abelard implies “that redemption is ‘love in us.’ ” Likely an attempt at summarizing vs26: “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (emphasis added). Letham supports this by proposing the very same commentary shows Abelard rejecting the Ransom to Satan theory and propounding redemption by the blood of Christ in His death. Letham then proceeds to identify the “Enlightenment” as responsible for continued popularity of this theory. Yet Lewis Sperry Chaffer indicates Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) reintroduced the Moral Influence theory to his followers called the Socinians.
On the other hand, D. L. Moody identifies the Socinians with the Example Theory, and indicates it “is more liberal than the moral influence view.” This theory motivates the unconverted not by the love of Christ shown in His willingness to suffer as in the Moral Influence Theory, but rather it is the obedience of Christ in dieing on the cross. Hence, Christ’s obedience is just an example to show we should obey God as well. John F. Walvoord indicates the Example Theory in Socinian doctrine is nearly identical to the Unitarians, whereby we see Chaffer assert the Moral Influence Theory is carried forward under Unitarian doctrine.
Louis Berkhof agrees that Abelard introduced the Moral Influence Theory, and the Socinians the Example Theory. Berkhof further points out that for the Moral Influence Theory, God pardons without satisfaction based solely on the condition of one’s heart toward God. For the Example Theory, Berkhof adds that in addition to there being no satisfaction in Christ’s death, neither does God do the forgiving. For being obedient unto death, Christ Himself receives the reward from God of being allowed to bestow on His subjects eternal life, assuming they attain to the obedient example of Christ.
It is true the New Testament provides several verses indicating Christ and things of heaven are examples for us here on earth. Further, a number of verses indicate the piety of men is to be an example to the lost world. But to take these verses out of context and hold them up as a doctrine of atonement is to do grave injustice to the Word of God, and further, to ignore such scriptures as indicate the real purpose for the sufferings of Christ.
Letham, The Work of Christ, 166-167.
Enns, Moody Handbook, 160, 320.
Tony Lane, “A 12th-Century Man for All Seasons: The Life and Thought of Bernard of Clairvaux,” in Christian History: Bernard of Clairvaux 24 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Carol Stream IL.: Christianity Today, 1989; 1996);
Walvoord, “Person and Work of Christ,” 299.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:570-572
Chafer, “Soteriology,” 153.
Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, p160.
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, combined edition (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1932, 1938, 1996), 386-87.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/8/2008 10:30:22 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 216
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
A few comments on the different atonement theories - I personally prefer the substitution theory I will post later ....
The Governmental Theory
Writing in opposition to the Socinians Hugo Grotius, a Dutch jurist, developed what is now called the “Governmental Theory” of atonement in his 1679 treatise De Satisfactione. As Anselm expressed himself using the culture of his times, Grotius expresses himself in the juridical language of the 17th century. For Grotius, God is simply the governor of the universe. As governor, God must suppress bad behavior to establish order in His domain. In Grotius’ theory, the best way to suppress bad behavior is to make an example out of someone to show what will happen if others misbehave.
Thus through God punishing Christ, man is thereby expected to straighten up and act according to God’s laws so the same does not happen to him. As Hodge puts it, “… according to this theory, the work of Christ was purely didactic. It was designed to teach, by way of an example, God’s hatred of sin. The cross was but a symbol.” While 2Pe 2:6 and Jude 1:7 could be seen as supporting Hugo’s theory, this would be to ignore the entire Word of God as the text to inform these verses, and instead develop a fanciful doctrine based on taking two verses out of context.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:574-75.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/8/2008 10:45:30 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 216
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
Vicarious, Substitutionary Atonement
A reformed position on the atonement can be generally deduced from studying the person and work of Jesus in relation to the types found in the tabernacle system of sacrifices and ceremonies/festivals. Simply put, the sins of the world were placed on the Second Person of the Trinity manifest as Jesus the Christ, who voluntarily suffered punishment and death in place of the human race, rose from death three days later, and was exalted to sit on the mercy seat at the right hand of God, that the elect might be looked upon by God through the payment Christ effected through His death and resurrection, resulting in application of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe in Him by a faith generated by the Holy Spirit as a gift from God.
Three main subjects are in the words “vicarious,” “substitutionary,” and “elect.” I will not derive a history of atonement theory in Reformed theology as it can be reviewed sufficiently in other resources. For this thread I will focus on the orthodoxy of the words themselves, attempting to focus on the scriptures from which the doctrines are derived, vice the men who proposed them.
The easiest word to contend with is “substitutionary.” This is a well-known concept wherein one thing stands in the place of another. Many modern families understand this when they go to a restaurant and their children substitute french-fries for a baked potato. It is also seen in the practice of schools providing for a substitute teacher in absence of the home-room teacher. In sports we see this when one team member is sent out to the field to play for another team member who is given a chance to rest. Unfortunately, none of these examples do justice to the idea as it relates to Christ. In the examples, the substitution can be temporary, and it is usually of equal value. Christ’s substitutionary work is permanent, and of an infinite value compared to that which was exchanged – His finite creation.
The Old and New Testaments are rife with examples of substitution. Examples range from the scene of Abraham given a ram as a sacrifice in exchange for his son, to the initiation of the Passover sacrifice in the Exodus, the sacrificial ceremonies in the wilderness tabernacle, and the pinnacle anti-type in the sacrifice of Christ as the Lamb of God.
Webster’s second definition of vicarious is, “performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another or to the benefit or advantage of another.” Thus the word vicarious carries with it the connotation of substitution, but with the additional characteristic that it is done on behalf of or to the advantage of the one substituted. When a first-string football player is substituted in place of a second-string teammate, and the first-string substitute makes a touchdown, it is the substitute who gets the glory, not the second-string player on the bench. However, when Christ was made our substitute it was for our benefit. This also is seen in the tabernacle sacrifices, wherein a blood sacrifice is required for the atonement of the soul, yet an animal is provided in place of executing judgment on the person who sinned. The animal’s suffering and death was a vicarious benefit to the one who sinned, and the sinner is now justified in the eyes of God (until the next sin under OT law). Christ once and for all suffered punishment and death in place of creation, such that we might receive the benefit of imputed righteousness, justification, forgiveness, atonement, and sanctification. Instead of a temporary measure like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament, Christ’s death and resurrection secured a permanent work of propitiation in the eyes of God for those whom He elected from the foundation of the world.
So now we come to that word regarding the cost of Christ's work on the cross over which men have debated for centuries: election. This word carries with it three basic concepts:
1) There are those of God’s creation who were chosen to be His children before the foundation of the earth (Mt 25:34, cf. Eph 1:4 and 1 Pe 1:20-21), and those who are not (Rev 13:8; cf. Rev 17:8). As such there are some (the elect) who will be glorified in heaven with God, and some who will be forever separated from God in hell for eternity (Mat 25:31-46, cf. 1Cor 6:9 and Ga 5:21);
2) Therefore the work of Christ on the cross as a satisfactory propitiation in the eyes of God was an effort that redeemed only the elect (Rev 17:14; cf. Mt 24:31; Lk 18:7; Ro 11:5, 7, 28; Co 3:12; 1 Th 1:4; 2 Ti 2:10 and 2 Pe 1:10), and did not make atonement for those who will find themselves paying for their sins for all eternity in hell. Their sins were not paid for by Christ, and as such, they must pay for their sins themselves (Ro 9:18; cf. Ex 4:21; Pr 16:4; Is. 43:7 and 2Pe 2:9)
3) There has been a long documented history of theologians recognizing the difference between the value of Christ’s blood, and the application of that value only to the elect of God. It began in earnest with Augustine but was expressed more poignantly by John Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza, in 1586 and the debate has continued ever since.
It is this third statement that also has interest to the cost of Christ's work on the cross: to whom is Christ’s work effective? Regardless of the value of Christ’s blood being limitless, to whom Christ’s propitiation is effective is definite. In other words, as has been previously inferred, only an infinite God can pay for the infinite debt owed by a finite creation. As the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ’s divine value is infinite. Yet as applied to redemption, that value is effective only for His elect. His grace and mercy are more than enough to secure redemption and provide blessings for those whom He has elected to be His Children before the foundation of the world.
An error founded by Armenius is that salvation is open to the entire world, and it is those who find it in themselves to come to faith in Christ and accept His offer are the ones who then become the elect. This makes Christ’s sacrifice insufficient, the work of the Holy Spirit in quickening faith unnecessary, the decision of God from before the foundation of the world to choose a people unto Himself a myth, and requires that a work of man complete the divine transaction of redemption. It makes God’s free and undeserved gift into a work of man. “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph 2:8-9, emphasis added; cf. Eph 2:5; Jn 1:13, 6:44, 65; Ac 6:14 and Ja 1:18.). Conversely, “Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens” (Rom 9:18 emphasis added; cf. Jn 12:40; 2Th 2:11).
Dr. Mal O. Couch, in his article Calvinism: Five or Four Points? also argues for an unlimited value, with limited application. However, he seems to espouse a type of Amyraldian error in vacillating between ascribing the limits of application to whether man accepts God’s call, and whether God graces His elect with faith through the Holy Spirit.
To be sure, the doctrine of election stuns the senses of a finite creation who’s wicked heart ever tends toward the injustice of universalism or necessitating the works of man. That is, the desire that all should be saved regardless of their behavior and attitudes toward Christ, or else requiring man to perform an act toward God (such as “choosing” to follow Christ). But the notions of universalism and works unto salvation betray God’s justice, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is 55:9). There are only two options, either the one who committed the sin must atone for the offense, or the morally bankrupt is pardoned through a satisfactory substitution – and the offer of satisfaction is only for the elect.
Since there is no doubt that there will be souls found in hell for all eternity (Rev 19:20-21, 20:15, 21:8), it is obvious their debts were not paid for. Since Christ is the only One who could pay their debts, it follows that Christ therefore did not pay the debts of those finding themselves in hell. Ergo, regardless of the value of Christ’s blood, the application of His atoning sacrifice is specific to “…those who have been called to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:9), and thus the reason He prays “…not for the world but for those whom, Thou hast given me …” in John 17:9.
Election opens up the inevitability of other avenues for discourse, to include individual responsibility, predestination, and the bondage of the will, which can be dealt with in other threads in this forum. While cogent replies have been made to these topics, one must also understand that ultimately there are mysteries in the logic of God that we still cannot fathom, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is 55:9; cf. Romans ch 9).
W. Robert Godfrey, “Reformed Thought On The Extent Of The Atonement To 1618,” Westminster Theological Journal 37 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Winter 1975; 2002): 133-171
Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Spring 1989; 2002): 1-23, Stephen Strehle, “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1989; 2002): 345-368
Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal 47 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1985; 2002): 197-227.
Webster, Collegiate Dictionary, “vicarious.”
Godfrey, “Extent of the Atonement,” 133-171.
Mal O. Couch, “Calvinism: Five or Four Points?” Conservative Theological Journal 4 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (August 2000; 2003): 189-213.
See especially principle #5 in Couch, “Four or Five Points?” 193-94
Couch’s inference about the lost in the seventh principle on pg 193 by quoting Matt 22:2-5, and in the fifth bullet on pg 194, “they will say, ‘He died for me, but I refused to accept His sacrifice for my sins!’ ” See also principle 6 on pg 193 and principle 2 on page 194.
Lewis Grant Randal, “Boettner’s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: An Examination,” Bibliotheca Sacra 92 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (April 1935; 2002): 233-256.
On the universal grace of Amyraldianism, see: Strehle, “Amyraldianism,” 345-368.
Roger Nicole, “The Case For Definite Atonement,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 10 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1967; 2002): 204-206
Nicole, “Extent of the Atonement,” 197-227.
Nicole shows from the immediate context of given verses, that many verses used to advance universalism (specifically concerning Is 53:6, Ro 8:32, 2Cor 5:14, Titus 2:11 and He 2:9) are actually in reference to God’s elect:
Chafer, “Soteriology,” 393; cf. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Paker and O. R. Johnston, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 1993), 273-318.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is forgiveness so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/9/2008 1:51:40 PM
|
|
|
SuccessinTruth
Posts: 76
Joined: 9/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FolkSingerBlues
Although I don't have a "pat" answer for this I will offer a comment.
This should make us begin to realize just how powerful sin is. It didn't take "a drop" of Jesus' blood, it took his life. If it just took a "drop" God would have just taken a "drop".
Great answer, our culture doesn't like the word sin, will not use the word shame. It wants us to believe that everyone just makes little mistakes that can be overlooked, understood, because, after all, none of us are perfect, and there are probably a lot of reasons for making that 'mistake'
God is perfect, just, Holy, and takes sin very seriously, it's not a game. The death our Lord suffered should show that even if you never read the Old Testament. Sin separates us from our Holy God, and separation from God is death. How can anything except blood redeem us, and perfect blood at that?
_____________________________
May we Glorify the Lord in all that we say and do
SuccessinTruth
www.mybenefitsplus.com/40623337
affordable dental and health care plans
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is forgiveness so costly for the Forgiver? - 9/11/2008 1:25:39 AM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 142
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why doesn't He just forgive us, period? Why the cross?
Pinopolitan:
Great question in your original post. The answers given by those who have posted here are, for the most part, right on the money. God could not forgive without grounds. Hebrews 9:6-22 states:
"6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 ¶ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Without the Blood there can be no forgiveness. A sacrifice had to be made. In the case of our sin, that sacrifice was Jesus Christ the perfect sinless Son of the living God. Because of his virgin birth, because of his sinless life, because of his deity, because of his HUMANITY, he alone was the perfect sacrifice for our sin.
I John 2:2 states that "he is the PROPITIATION for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse says a lot about your question. The word PROPITIATION means SATISFACTION. Lets ask some questions?
1. Who was satisfied? God, the creator and judge of all things. God who
is holy and righteous. Isaiah 6:1-5; Psalm 7:11; Ecc. 3:17;
Gen. 18:25
2. What was satisfied? God's wrath against sin. God's justice which
demands satisfaction. Romans 1:16-18
3. What was satisfied? The Law with it's demands of perfection in
righteousness. The Law which says that "the soul that sinneth, it shall
die." James 2:10; Ezek. 18:20
Christ death on the Cross forever satisfied the demands of the law and made it possible for God to forgive sinners who come to him through Christ.
Could God have simply forgiven us? Some would say yes, because God is God and he can do anything. The problem is that for him to have done so would not have satisfied the demands of his righteousness and holiness. It would not have satisfied his wrath against sin. There is no way that man could ever pay the debt himself. God's perfect holiness demanded a Perfect sinless sacrifice - and man in his human nature is sinful and totally depraved.
Question # 2 "why the Cross?" I am surprised that no one here has really attempted to answer this question. The Bible itself does not answer it in exact words but it does give us an answer.
The Cross most fully deals with the CURSE of sin both in reality and figure. The reality is that the Cross is an instrument of DEATH. Criminals were crucified as a manner of execution.
The penalty for our sins is DEATH. (Romans 6:23) The Cross was our place of death. (Romans 5:8) Death is the curse of sin. (Romans 5:12)
Galatians 3:13 says "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"
The curse of the Law is that NO ONE COULD KEEP IT PERFECTLY. Because of our sin nature, it is an absolute impossibility. Therefore, the law of God becomes a "curse". Perfection i.e. righteousness under the Law is impossible to reach. James 2:10 says "if any man keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point, he is guilty of all". In Galatians 3:10 , Paul writes, "as many as are of the works of the law are under the cu | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
