When Understanding the Cross

[DaveXR650]

A. Do I present a BILL for the debt, stamped "PAID IN FULL" in the blood of Christ proving that someone else has paid the debt that I owed?

B. Do I present a DEATH CERTIFICATE with my name on it and a BIRTH CERTIFICATE sealed by GOD proving that I am a new person and not the person that they are looking for?

As a starting point for a sermon A or B would be great. I would point out though that B is a death certificate where it was Christ who actually died for your sin and paid your debt. That we can symbolically die with him is a wonderful truth and should be preached, but Christ died bearing our sin in his own body.

So which does GOD use to eliminate the debt?
Are we FREE because JESUS PAID, or are we FREE because JESUS made us a NEW CREATION?
Which removed us from "the world" and made us children of "the Father"?

So the short answer is that we are free because Jesus paid, as a "cause" of making that possible. But it is absolutely true and essential that we be made a new creation. The point of all this discussion has been that some are saying that this can be short circuited. That we can simply be made a new creation without a propitiating sacrifice for our sins. They say, like the Socinians did in Owen's day, that God can simply forgive if he wants, and after all, doesn't he demand that much from us? They refuse to acknowledge God's sense of justice, even though it's clearly revealed, and instead try to make verses that show that say the opposite.

 

[JonC]

I just heard another "Christmas Sermon". As the child of a "Lily and Holly", I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for a pastor to preach about Christ and Salvation without using the analogy of monetary debt sooner or later. This time, it stirred a thought about this PSA debate and ATONEMENT THEORIES. So I wanted to embrace the monetary debt analogy and approach the question of atonement slightly differently.

PREMISE:
I am a degenerate gambler who owes an impossibly large monetary debt to [someone, everyone, a bank, a loan shark]. The "monetary debt" is a placeholder for "sin" and to whom it is owed is irrelevant to this thought experiment. I have sinned and there is a debt is a given for this discussion.

SALVATION:
The "Preacher" stories are full of tales of "somebody comes forward to pay the debt you could not pay". OK, let's skip over that part. The DEBT has been dealt with (Jesus blood covered my sin).

A KNOCK ON THE DOOR:
So now there is a knock on my door and [somebody] is demanding payment of the debt. Perhaps it is a Police Officer from the Bank of "God's Justice" or perhaps it is a Repo-Man representing the "powers and principalities and rulers of this dark age". I run to the desk where I keep the folder with "IMPORTANT PAPERS" to present my PROOF that the debt has been settled.

A. Do I present a BILL for the debt, stamped "PAID IN FULL" in the blood of Christ proving that someone else has paid the debt that I owed?

B. Do I present a DEATH CERTIFICATE with my name on it and a BIRTH CERTIFICATE sealed by GOD proving that I am a new person and not the person that they are looking for?

Both documents are legally binding to remove the debt from me. If the debt is paid, nobody can collect a second time on a paid debt. Under the law, a debt is only binding on a person while they are alive. You cannot collect a debt from someone else.

So which does GOD use to eliminate the debt?
Are we FREE because JESUS PAID, or are we FREE because JESUS made us a NEW CREATION?
Which removed us from "the world" and made us children of "the Father"?

This is an excellent example of the differences being discussed.

If the debt is paid in full there is no need for Jesus to make us a new creation.

If Jesus makes us a new creation the debt is canceled rather than paid.

We cannot accept both as being true.

 

[JesusFan]

Throughout history there have been several views of the Cross. People understand things differently and have different experiences contributing to their understanding.

I wanted to list things that we must keep in mind when forming our understanding. People will work through these things differently, but they should at least be "fence posts" marking the boundary lest the line be crossed.

Psa and Christ is Victor are both viewpoints that have been held, and both can be considered valid

I would list a boundary for how we view divine justice.

Whatever we view of the cross we need to make sure that we do not make a solution that presents God as unjust.

We have two huge fence posts:

1. God will punish the wicked.
2. God will not punish the righteous.

One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns (literally views as guilty) the righteous are both an abomination to God (Prov 17:15).

It is not good to punish the righteous (Prov 17:26).

The evil man will not go unpunished, but the descendants of the righteous will be delivered (Prov 11:21).

God will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity (Isaiah 13:11).

One cannot use point 2 though to mean that Jesus suffering our due wrath as being found sinners would make the Father treating Jesus upon the Cross in unrighteous manner

 

[JonC]

Psa and Christ is Victor are both viewpoints that have been held, and both can be considered valid

The reason Christus Victor and the Penal Substitution Theory cannot both be held is they contradict one another.

To hold both one (or both) have to be changed.

If you believe that Jesus suffered God's punishment for our sins then you cannot hold Christus Victor.

If you believe that Jesus suffered Satan's punishment for our sins by the permissive will and plan of God, that God will never punish the righteous, then you cannot hold Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[JonC]

One cannot use point 2 though to mean that Jesus suffering our due wrath as being found sinners would make the Father treating Jesus upon the Cross in unrighteous manner

One can use both truths in the verse.
Point 2 is even repeated a few verses later.

God will not treat the righteous as if guilty.
God will not punish the just.
God will punish the wicked.

Those verses mean what they say.

I am saying these are boundaries we cannot cross. There are other boundaries.

God will not abandon the righteous.
God will forgive based on repentance.

Christ's work is man as a new creation (a second Adam).

 

[JonC]

So the short answer is that we are free because Jesus paid, as a "cause" of making that possible. But it is absolutely true and essential that we be made a new creation.

There are a couple of issues here.

First, if Christ finished this work of redemption then it cannot just be a "cause" to make God reconciling mankind possible. The cross was not just one small step that opens a way for God to finishish the process.

Second, if this "debt" is paid instead of canceled and nailed to the cross then there is no reason for the rest you are willing to allow.

 

[JesusFan]

No, they call your reasoning here a "logical fallacy" for a reason. The logic is flawed.

We are not in big trouble. We were in big trouble.

Jesus is the Savior we need. We are made new creations in Christ Jesus. We are made into His image. He is the firstborn of many brothers. We die to sin and are made alive in Him.

God will not view the righteous as guilty or the wicked as righteous.

God will punish the wicked.
God will justify the righteous.

We were wicked. God is immutable. He does not change. His word stands.

But Christ took care of this problem. He is the reconciliation of God and man and wrought a better covenant.

Man is saved not through the law but apart from the law. We are predestined to be conformed to His image, to be justified, to be righteous, to be glorified.

On "that day", when God judges the world, thise who stand before God as wicked will be punished with the second death.

If you stand at judgment as one of the wicked, even if you believe Jesus already took your punishment so God can't harm you, you will perish.

But if you are a new creation, if what God says is true (that you are predestined to be made in Christ's image and actually be just and glorified) then God will not punish you because it is an abomination to view the righteous as guilty.


The interesting thing is my position is actually in the biblical text and yours is not. Yet you are nevertheless willing to stake your life on your understanding.

You have to apply to your understanding though that OT sacrificial system, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53

One can use both truths in the verse.
Point 2 is even repeated a few verses later.

God will not treat the righteous as if guilty.
God will not punish the just.
God will punish the wicked.

Those verses mean what they say.

I am saying these are boundaries we cannot cross. There are other boundaries.

God will not abandon the righteous.
God will forgive based on repentance.

Christ's work is man as a new creation (a second Adam).

Jesus death was though the most innocent suffering on behalf of vile sinners, and he was "punished" for our transgressions and bruised for our own iniquities
And without there being the basis for God to forgive provided for Him by the Death on Jesus in our stead and on our behalf, God has no way to save even those who repent of their sins

Come on. Romans 4:5. Now I'm not saying that this refers to wicked people who wish to remain wicked and not repent. But I've said that several times and so I don't expect you to understand it this time either.

While we were yet sinners, Jesus died for us, the godly for the ungodly

Come on. Romans chapter 4.

Through faith God justifies the ungodly, which is explained as his faith being credited as righteousness.

This is a crediting of righteousness of the OT saints based on their faith in God (God looking over their sins until "this present age").

But this is crediting, not justifying (actually being righteous) which is based on Christ as the guarantor of a better covenant.

ALl ewho have even been saved were justified by the atonement of Jesus upon that cross for their sins

My "thumbs up" was because I appreciated 12639 offering what he viewed as a non-negotiable boundary in developing a doctrine of Atonement rather than simply trying to argue for his understanding.

I was concerned that members would just come over here and extend arguments from other threads here rather than giving their criteria for a line not to cross.

For me, two of my "fence posts" are:

1. God will not condemn the righteous.
2. God will not justify the wicked.

Those are just two "posts".

But your system (if I may call it that) does nothing to satisfy the justice of God. It does not allow God to be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. God gives ungodly people a new birth (I assume that's what you are talking about) and bingo! They have their Get out of Jail Free card. But what about their sins? Rev. 6:10. "How long, O Lord holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" Under your system, God would be unjust.
But in fact, the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the penalty in full for all those whom God will save in His suffering and death upon the cross. 'Christ died for the ungodly' taking all their sins upon His sinless shoulders. 'There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.'

THEN, God gives new birth to those for whom Christ died. Then He will lead them in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake, and He will indeed be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

You just stated the heart of the Gospel, Pauline Justification, which is Psa to the very core

Do you believe that God views it as evil to comdemn a righteous man as if guilty as well as to clear or justify a wicked man?

Did not the Father "condemn" His own Son to be our sin bearer though?

 

[DaveXR650]

There are a couple of issues here.

First, if Christ finished this work of redemption then it cannot just be a "cause" to make God reconciling mankind possible. The cross was not just one small step that opens a way for God to finishish the process.

Second, if this "debt" is paid instead of canceled and nailed to the cross then there is no reason for the rest you are willing to allow.

Penal substitutionary atonement does not claim it is unnecessary to come by faith or to repent. It is trying to show that without it you would not dare come by faith or repent or in any way presume to deal with a holy God.

Secondly. Debt is a good way to talk of these things, though incomplete. So using that, if you think of it, a debt is cancelled when it is paid or forgiven. Years ago, I was looking at some records of a deceased relative. There was a paper detailing a list of debts owed to him along with a promise to pay every penny. My relative had put a big "X" on the whole paper and wrote "debt cancelled" and signed his name.

Was the debt paid or forgiven or cancelled. All three really. The debt was flat out forgiven - but the relative absorbed the debt which was owed to him. And so it was cancelled. Had he cancelled a debt that the person owed to someone else it would have been considered outrageous because he had no right to do that.

 

[JonC]

You have to apply to your understanding though that OT sacrificial system, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53

I am applying my understanding through the OT sacrificial system. I am just doing it as a covenant and in such a way that God is not unjust.

You need to make sure that you are not interpreting Isaiah 53 and the OT sacrifice system in such a way that it violates other passages.

 

[JonC]

Penal substitutionary atonement does not claim it is unnecessary to come by faith or to repent. It is trying to show that without it you would not dare come by faith or repent or in any way presume to deal with a holy God.

Secondly. Debt is a good way to talk of these things, though incomplete.

First, Penal Substitution Theory does not have to make the claim in order to commit the error. No theorist recognizes their mistake.

Christ completed the reconciliation of man and God on the cross. This reconciliation is Christ Himself.

Second, debt is not a good way to look at the Atonement. It is a good way to look at the law with its charges against us. But our salvation is not wrought through the law.

That debt was canceled, not paid.

 

[DaveXR650]

While we were yet sinners, Jesus died for us, the godly for the ungodly

Yes indeed. I was replying to Jon who had said that God will not save someone who wishes to remain wicked, which I agree with, except that that has nothing to do with Romans 4:5.

 

[JonC]

Did not the Father "condemn" His own Son to be our sin bearer though?

No. He lay our sins on Jesus but this is not a condemnation. God justified Jesus on the cross.

Jesus was put to death in the body, but made alive in the spirit.

 

[JonC]

Was the debt paid or forgiven or cancelled.

According to Scripture the debt was to the law and it was canceled and nailed to the cross.

Forgiveness is ongoing. It is not a debt to the law (what Scripture refers to as a debt) but sins against God. Christ currently propitiates for Christians when we sin because of His death reconciling man to God (He is man and God).

This is why we, if we sin, have an Advocate in Christ, why we can go to Him as our Mediator and High Priest.

We are forgiven by Christ Himself as the Propitiation for our sins because He is the reconciliation of God and man and the Guarantor of what we will be at Judgment.

 

[DaveXR650]

First, Penal Substitution Theory does not have to make the claim in order to commit the error. No theorist recognizes their mistake.

There is no mistake. It was first addressed in Romans 6:1. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"
You are showing a primary reason you mess up your theology all the time. And this I think comes from refusing to listen to anyone but yourself. Every individual truth in scripture does not have to stand alone. And a single verse can only say so much.

Second, debt is not a good way to look at the Atonement. It is a good way to look at the law with its charges against us. But our salvation is not wrought through the law.

Agreed. It is very incomplete and that's why I said it has limited value.

That debt was canceled, not paid.

I don't know why you would then bring that up since it's not very useful but once again. A debt is cancelled when it is truly paid. If it is simply forgiven, it means it is cancelled by the one owed the debt by him absorbing the debt himself.

 

[DaveXR650]

According to Scripture the debt was to the law and it was canceled and nailed to the cross.

The law simply said you die if you disobey. It is the coded and written will of God and reflects his nature. For most people, hopefully, when they realize this they will be concerned.

Forgiveness is ongoing. It is not a debt to the law (what Scripture refers to as a debt) but sins against God. Christ currently propitiates for Christians when we sin because of His death reconciling man to God (He is man and God).

Right. He is our high priest and ever lives to make intercession for us.

This is why we, if we sin, have an Advocate in Christ, why we can go to Him as our Mediator and High Priest.

Yes

We are forgiven by Christ Himself as the Propitiation for our sins because He is the reconciliation of God and man and the Guarantor of what we will be at Judgment.

Yes. All judgement is committed to Christ. If you are found "in Him" or wearing the covering he provided, or if he knows you as one of his sheep then there is no one who can successfully accuse you. Your judge is your savior.

 

[JonC]

I don't know why you would then bring that up since it's not very useful but once again

A debt is not canceled when it is paid. A debt is paid in full when it is paid, but it is still a debt which is marked "paid".

A debt is canceled when it is not applicable. If you die your debt is canceled. If you had the resources to pay the debt it could be assigned to probate, but it ceases to be your debt.

Here we are talking about moral debts (legal debts, not financial obligations).

If you have a debt to the law (say you have been charged with reckless driving) but you die that debt is canceled. The law does not require somebody else be charged in yoyr place.

@atpollard is absolutely correct with his illustration. These stand as opposing ways of viewing the Atonement.

 

[JonC]

Agreed. It is very incomplete and that's why I said it has limited value.

This is a difference in our view of the cross.

You view the cross as God collecting a legal debt (switching occasionally to a financial debt) punishing Jesus on the cross to make salvation possible

I view the cross as entirely the work of the Christ doing the will of the Father and completing the salvation of man in one act.

 

[DaveXR650]

@atpollard is absolutely correct with his illustration. These stand as opposing ways of viewing the Atonement.

I don't know if he was taking a position or just raising a good question. I would only say that I don't view Christ dying as a penal substitute to be in contradiction with the idea of identifying with Christ's death and resurrection. We say that when we baptize. New life, being born again, being seen by God as "in Christ" are not in contradiction with PSA.

If you have in your own mind created a picture of someone claiming their sins are paid for thus they can trample Jesus blood under their feet and still be OK as representing PSA then you need to reevaluate the truth of your understanding. Granted. The good news of the gospel is so outrageous in a sense that that is a possible conclusion. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that real gospel preaching will occasionally get you branded as an antinomian. And this was first noticed in Romans (6:1).

 

[DaveXR650]

I view the cross as entirely the work of the Christ doing the will of the Father and completing the salvation of man in one act.

Now you sound like a Hyper-Calvinist. That statement, taken by itself is a complete contradiction with your other statements claiming that repentance and faith are necessary, and that it is Calvinism that presents a shallow view of our relationship with God.

I believe that penal substitution occurred at the cross. And I think there is much truth in the other views of the atonement as also occurring. And many of those other views would seem to me to have to be concerning all men and not just the elect, thus that would be a blow to limited atonement. But that's a different subject.

 

[JonC]

I don't know if he was taking a position or just raising a good question. I would only say that I don't view Christ dying as a penal substitute to be in contradiction with the idea of identifying with Christ's death and resurrection. We say that when we baptize. New life, being born again, being seen by God as "in Christ" are not in contradiction with PSA.

I did not take it that the illustration was taking a position.

I was saying that it does offer two opposing views.

I believe the view that we hold a bill stamped "paid in full" does not fit within the biblical idea of divine justice (it depends on God both punishing the just and clearing the wicked).

I believe the virw that we hold a death certificate which cancels the debt is more accurate because it does not deny divine justice (the wicked still store up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath, God will still punish the wicked when He judges the world, God does not punish the righteous).

Both views deal with sin, but they do sp very differently.

If you have in your own mind created a picture of someone claiming their sins are paid for thus they can trample Jesus blood under their feet and still be OK

Obviously I have not (I already said when God judges us we must have been transformed into the image of Christ, died to our old self, been made a new creation).

Obviously we may sin in this life, prior to becoming what we are predestined to become when God judges the world. But we have an Advocate in Christ. We still repent. We are moving "from glory to glory" and are forgiven not based on the Father punishing our sins but on the basis of Christ Himself.