Thereoy of the Atonement

[francisdesales]

And yet with a handful of things, the Deity of Christ, the Love of the Father, atonement is sacrosanct. Examine it for what it is, yes. Find the nuances, mine the ore, reach for depths of understanding of what it is....but first accept that it is. And it, like all truths of God are compeltely independant of the vagaries of men and scholars.

Agree. Who Jesus is transcends what He did at Calvary... It is THAT question - "WHO IS JESUS?" - that is at the center of Christianity.

The problem of past ages is the separation of Christology from Soteriology. It is fortunate for this age of Christians that people are beginning to see the two as related and bound together.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

Hi again. No big deal from this end as far as others see things perhaps? But your post says heaps to me of ones sincerety. Who else in the Rev. 17:1-5 ones over the past many years are prophesied with a change in doctrine which you have just done? (very few!)

And on the Subject of Atonement, (Christ's Final Work) notice in Lev. 17:8-9 that both the stranger & the one of Israel had this last chance to make it right. There were twice daily sacrifices in the Holy Place, but only once a year was the Day for Atonement done in the second apartment called the Most Holy Place. That was where the Ark of the Covenant was, & still is kept in heaven. The Great Original. Note this verse in the 'time of judgement'. Rev. 11:18-19

I do not know where you are at with the High Priest's (Christ's) work in the Most Holy Place? (pointing to Christ's last work) But notice the 'seven times' in Lev. 16:14-16 & again in verse 19's 'seven times'.

--Elijah

i know that as sda you all place too much importance on doing the acts of law.

as a jew, i am set free from the need to follow the rituals of the sabaath(yes it falls on saturday).
or the food stuff.

but i wont go there on the law, that is another thread.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"Limited"????

"This is more often called the "limited atonement" because of the "L" in TULIP."

Which isn't really true at all - CALVINISTS/Reformed Theologians "limit the Atonement" according to their "theories". That's THEIR little conceptual problem, but "Penal Substitution" isn't intrinsically "limited" AT ALL, and can apply to all humanity without any issues at all.

It seems to be the one that makes the "most sense" of the collection:

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard. (Theopedia)

 

[francisdesales]

Re: "Limited"????

"This is more often called the "limited atonement" because of the "L" in TULIP."

Which isn't really true at all - CALVINISTS/Reformed Theologians "limit the Atonement" according to their "theories". That's THEIR little conceptual problem, but "Penal Substitution" isn't intrinsically "limited" AT ALL, and can apply to all humanity without any issues at all.

It seems to be the one that makes the "most sense" of the collection:

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard. (Theopedia)

You forgot the "penal" part - that God is punishing the most innocent of men. If this doesn't sound like the pagan concept of sacrificing blood to a pagan god to placate him, I don't know what is... Penal substitution turns the image of a loving God into something else. Where in the Gospels does Jesus make any such mention of this? In all of His parables and teachings, do we find Jesus describing His Father as such? I would suggest that those who favor "penal substitution" look at the parable of the Prodigal Son and attempt to identify their 'god' with the father of the story...

Furthermore, where in the Scriptures do we find God awaiting for "full payment for sins" before He forgives the repentant man? The Loving God of Christianity forgives the man who turns to God - there is no additional Biblical notion of "requiring a perfect sacrifice so His holy standards are not compromised" first. I would suggest that this is a man-made concept and that God is a humble God Who is not looking to balance the credit/debit sheet.

Regards

 

[Elijah674]

i know that as sda you all place too much importance on doing the acts of law.

as a jew, i am set free from the need to follow the rituals of the sabaath(yes it falls on saturday).
or the food stuff.

but i wont go there on the law, that is another thread.

First off. I am not a sda.

Secondly, as a Jew, (Rom. 2:28-29) if [[we]] are free like in being paroled! Now if one teach's that they can go out & paint the town all red pink , purple & blue, then what?! Friend, they are then right back found to be under the law! Eccl. 12:13-14 is our STANDARD of what [ALL] ARE TO BE JUDGED BY!! Take note of James 2:8-12! We are at LIBERTY as long as we are Rom. 8:14 LED, AND OBEY. Acts 5:32

And Third: Where do you find anything about 'rituals' in the Lords Ten Commandments?? You could be understanding it as Moses law that he wrote in a book?? Deut. 31:9 then see verse 24-26 where this law that WAS DONE AWAY WITH, was kept? in the [side of the Ark of God] not [INSIDE] where the Eternal Covenant still is Kept! Rev. 11:18-19.

And Forth:
And another thread?? Do you not understand that without the Eternal Law of God that there would never be any REASON FOR THE THREAD OF ATONEMENT??
1 John 3:4 '.. for sin is the transgression of the law' (and it started in heaven)

--Elijah

 

[Asyncritus]

It is a very sad thing that this subject has caused so many wars within Christendom.

To put the matter bluntly,

Christ was not murdered to save people,

so that the people He was murdered to save,

would then murder other people He was murdered to save,

while fighting about why He was murdered in the first place.

May God preserve us from theologians with nothing else to do but stir up strife with their theories. Sola scriptura, I say.

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]
1 John 3:4 '.. for sin is the transgression of the law' (and it started in heaven)

--Elijah

Did it? Where do you get that idea, Elijah?

 

[Asyncritus]

Agree. Who Jesus is transcends what He did at Calvary... It is THAT question - "WHO IS JESUS?" - that is at the center of Christianity.

Regards

Not so, Francis:

1 Cor 15: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

[...]

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If that one thing did not happen, then the whole thing is wrecked. Paul says so.

That is the centre of Christianity.

 

[francisdesales]

Not so, Francis:

1 Cor 15: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

[...]

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If that one thing did not happen, then the whole thing is wrecked. Paul says so.

That is the centre of Christianity.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Think about this:

A resurrection, in of itself, is not meaningful to us today, unless we understand WHO has risen. If Lazarus was raised from the dead by God, what significance is that for us today (even if he remained alive today...)?

Paul knows who the Christ is, and THAT fact makes the resurrection a key part of the Kerygma. WHO IS JESUS transcends the Resurrection.

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Think about this:

A resurrection, in of itself, is not meaningful to us today, unless we understand WHO has risen. If Lazarus was raised from the dead by God, what significance is that for us today (even if he remained alive today...)?

Paul knows who the Christ is, and THAT fact makes the resurrection a key part of the Kerygma. WHO IS JESUS transcends the Resurrection.

Regards

Hi Francis

I have thought about it, and so did Paul.

Who said:

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So question: Who is Jesus Christ?

Answer: The Son of God

How do we know? Because God raised Him from the dead.

Therefore:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

That I believe, qualifies the resurrection of Christ as the centre of Christianity.

He underlines the point even more dramatically with:

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Meaning:

If no resurrection, then we have no hope. That's it, finished. With it, all else falls into place.

Therefore, the resurrection is the centre of Christianity.

 

[jasoncran]

First off. I am not a sda.

Secondly, as a Jew, (Rom. 2:28-29) if [[we]] are free like in being paroled! Now if one teach's that they can go out & paint the town all red pink , purple & blue, then what?! Friend, they are then right back found to be under the law! Eccl. 12:13-14 is our STANDARD of what [ALL] ARE TO BE JUDGED BY!! Take note of James 2:8-12! We are at LIBERTY as long as we are Rom. 8:14 LED, AND OBEY. Acts 5:32

And Third: Where do you find anything about 'rituals' in the Lords Ten Commandments?? You could be understanding it as Moses law that he wrote in a book?? Deut. 31:9 then see verse 24-26 where this law that WAS DONE AWAY WITH, was kept? in the [side of the Ark of God] not [INSIDE] where the Eternal Covenant still is Kept! Rev. 11:18-19.

And Forth:
And another thread?? Do you not understand that without the Eternal Law of God that there would never be any REASON FOR THE THREAD OF ATONEMENT??
1 John 3:4 '.. for sin is the transgression of the law' (and it started in heaven)

--Elijah

jew, christians arent jews.

do you understand what the jew is and what paul meant by that and he was addressing the jew in the epistle of romans and was reminding them of that it was by faith abraham recieved the oracles not because of blood.

i'm jew in the flesh not by faith.

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Francis

I have thought about it, and so did Paul.

Who said:

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So question: Who is Jesus Christ?

Answer: The Son of God

How do we know? Because God raised Him from the dead.

Therefore:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

That I believe, qualifies the resurrection of Christ as the centre of Christianity.

He underlines the point even more dramatically with:

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Meaning:

If no resurrection, then we have no hope. That's it, finished. With it, all else falls into place.

Therefore, the resurrection is the centre of Christianity.

Of course, the caveat being that Jesus is Lord who was risen.

God verifies His teachings that Jesus was the Messiah by raising Jesus (and Jesus claiming to have the power to do this, as well) - AND the more subtle and sublime teaching, that God became man. The Church Fathers of ancient times saw that the Incarnation was the key element of our faith - not to put aside the resurrection or the crucifixion, but that was their main focus.

"God became man so that man could become 'gods'". Attaining eternal life is the end of the divinization process. Note, by God becoming man, we now have hope in something!!!

Thus, the Resurrection, in of itself - without consideration of who rose - is not the key part of our faith. Lazarus rose from the dead, as well. But the resurrection of Jesus and Who He claimed to be - that verified His very bold teachings. (believe on me and have eternal life, etc...)

Regards

 

[Elijah674]

jew, christians arent jews.

do you understand what the jew is and what paul meant by that and he was addressing the jew in the epistle of romans and was reminding them of that it was by faith abraham recieved the oracles not because of blood.

i'm jew in the flesh not by faith.

No problem with your 'non/bibical' statement. But if one is saved, (??) they will be a 'Spiritual Jew'! In the HEART WILL BE THE ETERNAL COVENANT [[RECREATED!]]Heb. 10:15-16 + Heb. 8:10.

--Elijah

 

[mondar]

Francis,
I have read your longer post several times. It is a long post, and certainly you say some things that I would be in agreement with.

One of the objections that I would have concerns the nature of God. I question the modern view of God's "wrath" as appropriate. Would you see God's wrath as an unjust attitude on the part of God? A loving God cannot show wrath and want to punish sinners? You speak of Christs innocence. Certainly I absolutely have to agree, but as you mention, Christ was made sin for us. Not that Christ sinned, but God saw Christ as a sinner.

The word "wrath" is connected with God in the scripture.

Romans 1:18 says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..."

I recognize that I (as well as many within the more classicly reformed Churches) might be the minority in this view of God. I do not see God as being evil in any way when he hates sin, and punishes the sinner. That is justice. That is virtue. God's wrath is glorious and good. Yes, it is also fearsome and terrifying.

I think of verses in Revelation in which the martyrs plead for God's wrath to fall on those who were slain for the sake of the lamb. The bottom line is this, the scriptures never picture God's wrath as anything negative, but always as something glorious.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,
I have read your longer post several times. It is a long post, and certainly you say some things that I would be in agreement with.

I thought you might want to discuss this more in-depth when I saw you move to begin a new thread. I happen to have been doing a lot of reading on this very matter, so I thought I would share what I have learned... However, I realize you might want to limit the discussion, so that's fine.

One of the objections that I would have concerns the nature of God. I question the modern view of God's "wrath" as appropriate. Would you see God's wrath as an unjust attitude on the part of God?

"Wrath" takes on an anthropomorphic connotation; when we think of that, we think of God yelling at someone. Wrath can also be "indignation" at a particular action, which is the divine order, God's created plan. Thomas Aquinas notes that God's wrath or anger is a result of man not following God's will, which places His beloved creature in a position of slavery and an inability to achieve fulfillment and union with Him. Naturally, the wrath is not directed AT the beloved, but the action that separates God from his beloved.

Wrath merely means God's Judgment, which doesn't require God getting "angry" at man. Romans 1 is an excellent example. Do we see lightning bolts fly from God's "fingers", a la Zeus? What we have is God turning His face from such a man in Romans 1:24. This is a theme of the OT, as well, the turning of God's face, an abhorent idea to the devout Jew, but little consequence to the unbeliever (who will find out just how low his slavery and corruption will become later...).

I recognize that I (as well as many within the more classicly reformed Churches) might be the minority in this view of God. I do not see God as being evil in any way when he hates sin, and punishes the sinner. That is justice. That is virtue. God's wrath is glorious and good. Yes, it is also fearsome and terrifying.

Such theologians want their cake and eat it, as well. God hates sin and would have to punish EVERY man because all men sin. What a dilemna. That is not justice, especially if man is UNABLE to obey God (according to the depraved notion, where men remains a sinner even after reconciliation). NOR is punishing an innocent human (Jesus) just. How is crucifying an innocent man just?

No, we must look elsewhere for a solution than to assign "reason" akin to man's wisdom, for the cross is foolishness. What is foolish? Man's ways of "balancing the credit/debit sheet", that's what. Human ways DEMAND justice in a quid pro quo manner. Is God that way? Hardly. The "foolishness" of God is to transcend that.

If God is worrying about His "honor", He chose an interesting way of securing it (by humbly dying on a cross???) Humans cannot fully understand, by the ways of the world, this attitude. One must be a self-less lover to understand it, a lover who totally gives Himself to the other.

Such a love does not look to anger or balancing the credit/debit slate. Ever been truly in love before with someone? Is that how one acts, one who is in love, really self-less love? That is not what Jesus taught us throughout the Gospels. Does the father in Luke 15 demand such rebalancing? No, Anselm was wrong in that aspect, and Luther/Calvin were even more wrong. Satisfaction is not God's satisfaction as to His "honor", but satisfaction in reconciling the Lover to the loved.

Now, I do agree that the fear of God is the first step of wisdom. However, there is no fear for those who love, correct? Love, admittedly, requires further walking. However, once we walk down that path, we no longer fear (in the way you present) Abba.

The bottom line is this, the scriptures never picture God's wrath as anything negative, but always as something glorious.

It is for those subject to it. And it is glorious because God's Mercy goes beyond strict Justice.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

No problem with your 'non/bibical' statement. But if one is saved, (??) they will be a 'Spiritual Jew'! In the HEART WILL BE THE ETERNAL COVENANT [[RECREATED!]]Heb. 10:15-16 + Heb. 8:10.

--Elijah

the reason i make the difference is that we dont have spirtitual tribes and uh paul went to the jews first then the gentile

so then he went those saved and to tell them about the Lord? think about that when post that the next time.

th ot faith of abraham is the exact same as we have.

he belived and it was imputed rightenous, see galatians 3.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Re: "Limited"????

"loving God"

God as a "Loving God" is only part of what GOD is. He's a God of RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT, and of WRATH, and operates under the premise that WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD - there's no "remission of SIN".

Heb 9:19 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.

"Furthermore, where in the Scriptures do we find God awaiting for "full payment for sins" before He forgives the repentant man?"

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Case closed.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: "Limited"????

"loving God"

God as a "Loving God" is only part of what GOD is. He's a God of RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT, and of WRATH, and operates under the premise that WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD - there's no "remission of SIN".

Heb 9:19 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.

"Furthermore, where in the Scriptures do we find God awaiting for "full payment for sins" before He forgives the repentant man?"

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Case closed.

Case closed? You think pretty highly of yourself, without even waiting for a rebuttal...

Perhaps, if I may re-open the case? Consider the following.

You need to consider the context. UNDER THE LAW, there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood... The recipients of the letter were Jewish Messianics who desired to continue to sacrifice animals while believing in the Christ. Look more closely at verse 22 above.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

BY THE LAW, there is no remission of sin without blood...

As to the second section, the writer is speaking of the "all done once" sacrifice of Jesus vs the sacrifice offered by those priests, which only cover the sin temporarily. TAKING AWAY sin vs covering temporarily. Thus, earlier, the author writes that such bloody sacrifices do not cleanse the conscience. Even rabbinical literature makes such statements, as rabbis on their death bed felt the crushing guilt of their past sins - rather than accepting Jesus' one-time sacrifice that REMOVES sins, casting them away so they are no longer remembered. The sacrifice of Christ cleanses our guilt away, cleans our conscience.

Now, if you think you believe that we need to offer a sacrifice before we are forgiven of sins (or that God requires that), you need to go and immerse yourself in the Gospels. Nowhere does Jesus mention such "satisfaction" as a requirement. Merely "repent and believe". Nothing more. To make things simple, read the parable of the Prodigal Son, and ask yourself "how much does the father require from the son before he is satisfied and accepts him back into relationship".

You will have your answer.

 

[mondar]

I thought you might want to discuss this more in-depth when I saw you move to begin a new thread. I happen to have been doing a lot of reading on this very matter, so I thought I would share what I have learned... However, I realize you might want to limit the discussion, so that's fine.

"Wrath" takes on an anthropomorphic connotation; when we think of that, we think of God yelling at someone. Wrath can also be "indignation" at a particular action, which is the divine order, God's created plan. Thomas Aquinas notes that God's wrath or anger is a result of man not following God's will, which places His beloved creature in a position of slavery and an inability to achieve fulfillment and union with Him. Naturally, the wrath is not directed AT the beloved, but the action that separates God from his beloved.

Wrath merely means God's Judgment, which doesn't require God getting "angry" at man. Romans 1 is an excellent example. Do we see lightning bolts fly from God's "fingers", a la Zeus? What we have is God turning His face from such a man in Romans 1:24. This is a theme of the OT, as well, the turning of God's face, an abhorent idea to the devout Jew, but little consequence to the unbeliever (who will find out just how low his slavery and corruption will become later...).

Certainly terms like "wrath" and "anger" are anthropomorphic. I am using the terms myself in an anthropomorphic sense assuming that they will be understood as such. I certainly agree that when God sees sin, he does not get a red face, get his blood pressure up, and get the adrenaline pumping.

On the other hand, this is not to deny that God intends to punishment sin. I bring up the subject of wrath, not because I see God's wrath as something related to a corporal human body, but because I see the scriptural terms as related to a penalty for sin. Of course the penalty for sin is death. This is clear not only from Romans 5, but also in Romans 1. As we have discussed, Romans 1:18 speaks of the wrath of God. This wrath is revealed by God "giving them over." The end of the entire process is found in verse 32.
"Romans 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they practice such things are worthy of death...."

Of course when Adam sinned, it resulted in death entering the human race. I don't see the term death as merely physical, but also spiritual. Eternal death is the penalty for sin. So then, would not Christ's death be penal in nature?

Such theologians want their cake and eat it, as well. God hates sin and would have to punish EVERY man because all men sin. What a dilemna. That is not justice, especially if man is UNABLE to obey God (according to the depraved notion, where men remains a sinner even after reconciliation). NOR is punishing an innocent human (Jesus) just. How is crucifying an innocent man just?

You raise several issues here. You think that the concept of God punishing every man is incorrect. On the other hand, I think that is what the atonement is all about. I do not see unbelievers as under the blood, and when they go to hell and suffer eternal damnation and death, it is the penalty for their sin. Of course believers, the elect, go to heaven only because that debt of punishment was paid by Jesus Christ. It is true that Jesus lived the perfect life. He was innocent of all sin. He had to be innocent or perfect in righteousness. Otherwise he would be unfit as a substitute. He would then suffer for his own sin, not the sins of those of faith.

The second issue you raise concerns the concept that man is "unable" to obey God. You seem to be suggesting that this somehow excuses man. I do not see that this logically follows. As an illustration, if a drunk driver hits a person, he cannot excuse his behavior and say "I was unable to miss the person because I was drunk." (yes, I know the illustration breaks down if pressed to far). Here in Pennsylvania, we have laws. If someone is mentally ill, and murders a person, they can plead "guilty by reason of insanity." That does not mean the person is innocent. They still are taken to prison. I guess the bottom line, is I do not see that inability to preform a task excuses anyone from the responsibility of their actions. I also think this is what Adam and original sin is all about. I see Adam as having "ability." When he chose sin, he chose sin for all of us. So we all had ability in Adam. Origianl sin has the same federal headship concept that is found in the substitutionary aspect of Christs death.

I do perceive, that the bottom line is the concept of responsibility. You think that if man is unable to achieve perfection, that it excuses him from responsibility. Is that really a consistent Roman Catholic position? Or do other Roman Catholics think more like me, that inability is not an excuse?

No, we must look elsewhere for a solution than to assign "reason" akin to man's wisdom, for the cross is foolishness. What is foolish? Man's ways of "balancing the credit/debit sheet", that's what. Human ways DEMAND justice in a quid pro quo manner. Is God that way? Hardly. The "foolishness" of God is to transcend that.

If God is worrying about His "honor", He chose an interesting way of securing it (by humbly dying on a cross???) Humans cannot fully understand, by the ways of the world, this attitude. One must be a self-less lover to understand it, a lover who totally gives Himself to the other.

Such a love does not look to anger or balancing the credit/debit slate. Ever been truly in love before with someone? Is that how one acts, one who is in love, really self-less love? That is not what Jesus taught us throughout the Gospels. Does the father in Luke 15 demand such rebalancing? No, Anselm was wrong in that aspect, and Luther/Calvin were even more wrong. Satisfaction is not God's satisfaction as to His "honor", but satisfaction in reconciling the Lover to the loved.

Now, I do agree that the fear of God is the first step of wisdom. However, there is no fear for those who love, correct? Love, admittedly, requires further walking. However, once we walk down that path, we no longer fear (in the way you present) Abba.



It is for those subject to it. And it is glorious because God's Mercy goes beyond strict Justice.

Regards

Anselem's satisfaction theory does fall short. I don't think the atonement is a matter of merely "honor." It is much more then that. It is love, it is glory, it is the righteousness and justice of God. I think of Romans 3:26.
"for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."
The crosswork of Christ makes God full of justice (in that the penalty was paid), and it also makes us justified.

Certainly God's mercy goes beyond justice, but that does not mean it does not include justice.

 

[francisdesales]

Certainly terms like "wrath" and "anger" are anthropomorphic. I certainly agree that when God sees sin, he does not get a red face, get his blood pressure up, and get the adrenaline pumping.

That's not what I meant. I meant that "wrath" and "anger", from a human point of view, differs from what it means in reference to God. We look at "justice" and consider the "scale of justice". It must be perfectly balanced (to the human ideal). God doesn't need to view justice like that. Jesus tells a number of parables, such as the man who pays the same wages, whether working one hour or all day. Yea, it's not fair, in our minds... But are you envious of God's mercy? Secondly, what is man angered at when he is "full of wrath"? For humans, wrath and anger are directed AT another person. For God, it is directed at an action. You avoided this entirely in your response.

So then, would not Christ's death be penal in nature?

No, Christ's death is "representative satisfaction", not penal substitution. First, the penalty of sin, ultimately, is eternal death, which Christ did not suffer. Christ did not go to the realm of satan and the eternally damned. That is Calvin's dream, not found in Scriptures. Secondly, you call God just while punishing an innocent!!! You want your cake and eat it, too...

Christ lowers the barrier that separates us (mankind, not the individual, in this discussion) from God - sin. Jesus, as mankind's representative, satisfies the Father with His entire Life, culminating with the Paschal Mystery. The satisfaction is not that God is satisfied by some "credit/debit" balance that is restored (which, by the way, is the Western/Roman legal way that has infiltrated OUR thought process. This idea is unknown to our Greek counterparts, even before the Schism in the 11th century). It is MAN'S idea that God must be satisfied by a perfect sacrifice before the balance is re-dressed. It is a rational and legal attempt to explain the Work of Christ. There are numerous parables that I could bring up to prove my case, that God does not view things through legal redress.

COMPENSATION IS NOT REQUIRED IN ANY FORM - RECONCILIATION IS FREELY GIVEN, BUT MUST BE ASKED FOR. Can you find me ONE example in the Gospel where Jesus speaks of such "satisfaction of the Father's wrath" as a pre-requisite before forgiveness is given?

I already gave you one example. How about another?

His lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me Matt 18:32

Nothing about bringing a perfect sacrifice, nothing about looking for an innocent man to punish to assuage the wrath of the lord, nothing about ANY sort of price before the lord forgave. Note, BECAUSE THOU DESIREDST ME...

And THAT, Mondar, is what Jesus does. As our Mediator/Intercessor, He is the one who asks, for the entire human race, for reconciliation. He continues to sit at the right hand of the Father, continuing to intercede for your and my sins. Repentance is the first stage in rebuilding the relationship, and as our "representative", the Second Adam, that is what Jesus is doing, His PRIMARY role. CONTINUING to intercede (Romans and Hebrews both note the present intercession of Jesus, not something once done)

You raise several issues here. You think that the concept of God punishing every man is incorrect.

It is unbiblical, based upon a quid pro quo, which clearly, God does not consider.

On the other hand, I think that is what the atonement is all about. I do not see unbelievers as under the blood, and when they go to hell and suffer eternal damnation and death, it is the penalty for their sin.

They turned from God's promptings. Even the pagans can know God exists through nature. Even the pagans can know what is right and what is wrong by conscience, the Spirit writing a law in man's heart.

Of course believers, the elect, go to heaven only because that debt of punishment was paid by Jesus Christ.

What debt? Paid to whom? Where is this in Scriptures?

It is true that Jesus lived the perfect life. He was innocent of all sin. He had to be innocent or perfect in righteousness.

Where does God demand a perfect and righteous offering BEFORE He grants forgiveness of sin? Again, this is rationalization - that a perfect God demands a perfect sacrifice. While it is "fitting", please point the Scriptures that say this is a requirement. Aquinas and Anselm were able to make that distinction that you cannot.

Otherwise he would be unfit as a substitute. He would then suffer for his own sin, not the sins of those of faith.

He is "fit" to be our substitute because He indeed represents ALL men. Which man can represent all of mankind, past, present and future? Only an eternal man. It is "fitting" that such a man indeed be free from sin, so as to be a worthy sacrifice offered to God. But that is not a requirement, what is required is that someone representing mankind do that asking, and that the intercessor has a "demand" upon the Father. This "demand" is the Love and Obedience offered by the Christ in supreme humility. Jesus MERITS our forgiveness.

The second issue you raise concerns the concept that man is "unable" to obey God. You seem to be suggesting that this somehow excuses man.

Logically, that is your point of view, that man is completely and thoroughly corrupt, but yet should be eternally punished for something beyond his ability. It is again unjust to punish someone who cannot obey. Punishment is only for the unwilling.

As an illustration, if a drunk driver hits a person, he cannot excuse his behavior and say "I was unable to miss the person because I was drunk."

The problem is not his inability to hit a person while drunk, but getting into a vehicle and starting the car, knowing that it is against the law to do so. He did not make provisions to avoid that issue, and thus bears responsibility for anything he does in that car, even if he is mentally unable to respond while driving that car.

In your idea of anthropology, man is totally unable to meet God, at any point or at any degree. There is absolutely NO goodness in His creation whatsoever, he is not even worth saving. Man in this situation CANNOT obey ANY command from God. But God punishes him eternally. Again, that is a problem of injustice.

I guess the bottom line, is I do not see that inability to preform a task excuses anyone from the responsibility of their actions.

Then you have no consistent concept of what justice is.

You think that if man is unable to achieve perfection, that it excuses him from responsibility. Is that really a consistent Roman Catholic position? Or do other Roman Catholics think more like me, that inability is not an excuse?

The Catholic Church does not see man as totally depraved. We are unable to come to God without God's aid, but it doesn't follow that we are totally depraved and are akin to puppets that God must ENTIRELY DRAG to salvation. Again, that is not a relationship of love, since love REQUIRES a free-will choice and if one cannot chose, even a God-moved choice, there is no will whatsoever. Of course, this idea of yours is a result that came from your idea of the Atonement.

Anselem's satisfaction theory does fall short. I don't think the atonement is a matter of merely "honor."

Like I said, it is primarily about Freedom, not about honor. I specifically said that to Anselm, it is not about God's Honor. To Anselm, Jesus is not being punished, but is correcting what sin had destroyed. To Anselm, punishment was a moot and superfluous point, if satisfaction was being made. Where Anselm falls short, in my opinion, Aquinas makes some due corrections. His emphasis is on the Goodness of God, rather than a Satisfaction of the Divine Order. To Aquinas, the Passion of Christ is a source of salvation for mankind, not because of the "punishment" you mention, but because of the QUALITY of His Love.

Certainly God's mercy goes beyond justice, but that does not mean it does not include justice.

Exactly, and there is no justice in PUNISHING an innocent man... What happened to Christ is not punishment! That is clear, unless you want to change the definitions of justice to suit your scheme... One must be consistent, and punishing an innocent man is not consistent with the definition of justice.

Regards