When Understanding the Cross

[JonC]

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.

I was what many would consider a hyper-Calvinist (as I believed in Reprobation). I said that Calvinism is a shallow view of the blood shed for us, an inch deep and three miles wide. The relationship we have with God is not dependent on our understanding. I never made the claim you attribute to me.

I know you believe that Penal Substitution Theory accurately describes what happened at the cross. I believe that you are wrong. Instead I believe that man was reconciled to God in the person of Jesus Christ by His blood shed, that He is now the Guarantor of a new covenant representing what we will be when God judges the world. I believe the cross is completely the act of Christ and this completed our salvation in full (not a step acvomplished by the Father to make this reconciliation a possibility).

 

[JesusFan]

I was what many would consider a hyper-Calvinist (as I believed in Reprobation). I said that Calvinism is a shallow view of the blood shed for us, an inch deep and three miles wide. The relationship we have with God is not dependent on our understanding. I never made the claim you attribute to me.

I know you believe that Penal Substitution Theory accurately describes what happened at the cross. I believe that you are wrong. Instead I believe that man was reconciled to God in the person of Jesus Christ by His blood shed, that He is now the Guarantor of a new covenant representing what we will be when God judges the world. I believe the cross is completely the act of Christ and this completed our salvation in full (not a step acvomplished by the Father to make this reconciliation a possibility).

Where did the stored up wrath of the Father towards all of us before we were saved by Grace go then?

 

[JonC]

Where did the stored up wrath of the Father towards all of us before we were saved by Grace go then?

God is not storing wrath. The wicked are.

"because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath" (Rom 2:5)


What do the wicked do with that wrath that they have stored up for themselves for the day of wrath when they cease to exist and are made new creations?

Nothing. They do not make it to the day of wrath. That wrath dies with them.

 

[DaveXR650]

God IS just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Christ. And Christ Himself is the Guarantor of this better covenant by which we can now be credited as righteous through faith.

God declares those who have faith in Jesus as righteous based on Christ Himself as the Surety of the covenant.

We have been saved through faith rather than works, and this salvation is a gift from God (Eph 2).

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.

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

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.

Well I think you are all over the place and even contradicting yourself in one thread. If it depends on your faith fine, then don't come on and say:

I believe the cross is completely the act of Christ and this completed our salvation in full (not a step acvomplished by the Father to make this reconciliation a possibility).

Because [I think] indeed you do believe it was a step, which requires also that one have faith. What you have been doing all along in these threads is to contradict everything anyone tries to tell you. You will go either way, as long as it is a contradiction of what was just said. Personally, I think this has been sufficiently brought out and illustrated so that honest people reading these threads won't be too damaged by this stuff. I do not think any more light will be shed so I am done.

 

[JonC]

Well I think you are all over the place and even contradicting yourself in one thread. If it depends on your faith fine, then don't come on and say:

Because indeed you do believe it was a step, which requires also that one have faith. What you have been doing all along in these threads is to contradict everything anyone tries to tell you. You will go either way, as long as it is a contradiction of what was just said. Personally, I think this has been sufficiently brought out and illustrated so that honest people reading these threads won't be too damaged by this stuff. I do not think any more light will be shed so I am done.

I do not believe Christ's death was a step at all. I believe the blood Christ shed for us actually accomplished the work of reconciling man to God, which is the reason His death destroyed the power of the one who holds the power of death. Our faith, or lack thereof, does not change the completed work of reconciling man to God in the person of Christ.

In fact, if nobody had faith this would not change the completed work of Christ. Christ would still be the reconciliation of God and man.

Nothing I have said contradicts itself, but I understand that you are unable to see this. To be fair, before I left my previous position for a more literal reliance on God's word I would not have been able to see it either.

The important thing is that you and I have offered people who pass by two very different and opposing ways of viewing the work of Christ and they can decide which is biblical (if either) as they are responsible for their own faith.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Why on earth would you suppose that? If the debt is paid in full then God can give believers new birth and still be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. Nothing impure will enter the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27), so unless one is born again he will neither see nor enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5).

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

We cannot accept both as being true.

The last bit's right. But if God simply cancels sin and/or guilt, then there is no need for the Lord Jesus to come to earth, let alone to suffer and die.

 

[JonC]

Why on earth would you suppose that? If the debt is paid in full then God can give believers new birth

Why would we need a new birth if God now has nothing against us?

And if we are predestined to be made into the image of Christ then when God judges the world we would have no sins against us by virtue of having died to sin and been remade in His image. God would have, in your theory, punished Jesus for our sins with no purpose.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

According to your theory how was man reconciled to God in the person of Christ, by Christ's work, prior to the Resurrection?

 

[Ben1445]

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.

If I owe money on a charge account and the account holder cancels the debt, he does not instantly create the value that I have already walked away with. He takes the loss on himself.

 

[Ben1445]

This is like the government forgiving student loans. Only, the people in government trying to erase the debts are not taking the responsibility on themselves. They are, by default, putting it on the taxpayers where the loan originated. It is the taxpayer who will never see the benefit of the “cancelled” loan. (Not that he would see the benefit either way.)

 

[atpollard]

This is like the government forgiving student loans. Only, the people in government trying to erase the debts are not taking the responsibility on themselves. They are, by default, putting it on the taxpayers where the loan originated. It is the taxpayer who will never see the benefit of the “cancelled” loan. (Not that he would see the benefit either way.)

Wrath owed is more like an insurance policy. The SINNER is making monthly payments to maintain the policy. GOD has promised to pay the WRATH in full when the policy matures on the Day of Wrath. If the sinner is still a SINNER IN BAD STANDING at the Day of Wrath, then God will certainly pay the accumulated WRATH in full. If the sinner DIES to sin (LIVES to Christ) before the policy matures, before the Day of Wrath, then there is no payment of WRATH due (just as there is no payment on an insurance policy if it expires before the conditions are met).

God is out “nothing”. God has suffered no “loss”. God has obtained that which God desired …

Ezekiel 33:11 [NKJV] "Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'

2 Peter 3:9 [NKJV] The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

 

[JonC]

If I owe money on a charge account and the account holder cancels the debt, he does not instantly create the value that I have already walked away with. He takes the loss on himself.

If it were finances, this is true. But we are talking about sins. Our sins do not create a deficit for God.

You stand before a judge and the judge asks why you should not be punished for a crime. Your lawyer explains to the judge that you did not commit the crime, the guilty man died before the court hearing began.

The docket is canceled. Why? Because the criminal died. The judge does not require that somebody else be punished for the crimes of dead people.

BUT this only really applies to the law which has been fulfilled. It was not fulfilled by punishment for violations being suffered (this would not fulfill the law). The law can only be fulfilled by perfect obedience.

You do not have to make God violate His own standard of justice by punishing the just and clearing the wicked in order for God to reconcile man.

There is a better Way, a better covenant. The law is fulfilled and God remains just as He justifies those who have faith in Christ.

 

[Ben1445]

If it were finances, this is true. But we are talking about sins. Our sins do not create a deficit for God.

You stand before a judge and the judge asks why you should not be punished for a crime. Your lawyer explains to the judge that you did not commit the crime, the guilty man died before the court hearing began.

The docket is canceled. Why? Because the criminal died. The judge does not require that somebody else be punished for the crimes of dead people.

BUT this only really applies to the law which has been fulfilled. It was not fulfilled by punishment for violations being suffered (this would not fulfill the law). The law can only be fulfilled by perfect obedience.

You do not have to make God violate His own standard of justice by punishing the just and clearing the wicked in order for God to reconcile man.

There is a better Way, a better covenant. The law is fulfilled and God remains just as He justifies those who have faith in Christ.

God required Israel to bring a sacrifice. The sacrifice is an offering. It is payment for sin. It is a debt to the law that must have been paid. What did Jesus dying do if not pay for sin? There is an exchange that happens. He in my place so that I may be found in His place. You are missing so much of the picture. But you are in agreement with the Koran. The Koran explicitly states that nobody dies for anyone else’s sins. The reason for this is to prevent people from believing in Jesus. Muslims recognize it is a Christian doctrine. I wonder why you don’t.
Why not have faith in God without a dying Savior? If it is as easy as believe in Christ and the sin is canceled, why did Jesus die? There is no purpose.

 

[Ben1445]

Wrath owed is more like an insurance policy. The SINNER is making monthly payments to maintain the policy. GOD has promised to pay the WRATH in full when the policy matures on the Day of Wrath. If the sinner is still a SINNER IN BAD STANDING at the Day of Wrath, then God will certainly pay the accumulated WRATH in full. If the sinner DIES to sin (LIVES to Christ) before the policy matures, before the Day of Wrath, then there is no payment of WRATH due (just as there is no payment on an insurance policy if it expires before the conditions are met).

God is out “nothing”. God has suffered no “loss”. God has obtained that which God desired …

Ezekiel 33:11 [NKJV] "Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'

2 Peter 3:9 [NKJV] The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

You must please forgive me for my perspective.
If I make a product, I create value.
God made man and created value.
If my product is ruined, I can take the loss of time and effort or I can repair the damage on my “creation” no matter how insignificant the value of the creation. There are people who will argue about wasted time when someone making $100 dollars an hour takes hours to repair something that cost pennies. Why do people do things like that? I don’t know. Why does God do the same thing toward us?
No matter how insignificant our value is, God saw fit to redeem us instead of replace us.
I prefer the purchase analogy. We are bought with a price, you remember.
I see the disconnect you point out, but it was not a parable to make a perfect example. It was to point out that value is not whimsical. Value costs something.

 

[JonC]

God required Israel to bring a sacrifice. The sacrifice is an offering. It is payment for sin. It is a debt to the law that must have been paid. What did Jesus dying do if not pay for sin? There is an exchange that happens. He in my place so that I may be found in His place. You are missing so much of the picture. But you are in agreement with the Koran. The Koran explicitly states that nobody dies for anyone else’s sins. The reason for this is to prevent people from believing in Jesus. Muslims recognize it is a Christian doctrine. I wonder why you don’t.
Why not have faith in God without a dying Savior? If it is as easy as believe in Christ and the sin is canceled, why did Jesus die? There is no purpose.

I have no idea why you think those of us who believe that by Christ's obedience, His blood shed for us, His death on a cross also think that we do not believe in a dying Savior. That is weird.

No, sacrificing animals was not a payment for sins (Heb 10; 1 Sam 15:22; Hoz 6:6).

Matthew 12:7 is another key verse - But if you had known what this [a]means: ‘I desire compassion, rather than sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent".

What does God require? Sacrifice or obedience?

I would say your theory corrupts and minimizes not only the Old Testament sacrificial system but also the cross.

Where you see the Father as condemning the Righteous to death in order to justify the wicked, I see Christ completing a work to reconcile man to God, completely finished on the cross of Calvery.

Where you view Christ as a penal substitute I view Christ as a second type of man (a second Adam).

 

[atpollard]

There is a better Way, a better covenant. The law is fulfilled and God remains just as He justifies those who have faith in Christ.

I prefer this perspective.

 

[JonC]

I prefer this perspective.

I think the problem with many here is starting with a theory and then going to the Bible to prove it. But once you are told the ink blot is a bat it is difficult to recognize the ink for what it really is.

I have found that many who now reject Penal Substitution Theory were led there by finding inconsistencies. They were taught this framework of the Atonement but at the same time they were told to study Scripture.
One I know of found it difficult to believe that God would have to punish on Christ to satisfy justice when he read in the Bible God telling us to put away our wrath and forgive when others sin against us.

For me (I was a Calvinist, but even before that I held the Penal Substitution Theory as it was what I had been taught) it was a conviction after a sermon I had preached. I found the theory is not actually in the biblical text (it is what some believe the biblical text ultimately teaches).

But we are products of our environment. There is a reason Eastern churches never went the direction of Western churches with Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, or Penal Substitution Theory. It is foreign to their, not our, worldview.

 

[JonC]

Well I think you are all over the place

To your eyes I understand I all over the place when it comes to my own view. The Early Church did not have a framework for the Atonement. They were not from the Western world. To you, they also were "all over the place".

Theologians will say the earliest theory is Ransom Theory but that was really just a statement (not what we would call a theory...Christ died to ransom us from the powers of Satan).

Scholars will say that the primary theme was Christ's victory over Satan, but that is not a theory. It is just a general theme.

You want a concise theory. There is not one that can contain the work of Christ.

I guess if you want a name for my "theory" it is the ECM (Early Church Model). I think David Bercot coined that term (he is a Christian historian whose focus is Early Church writings). It might not be his term...I can't say for certain. But I know he has used it.

But it is kinda a take it as it comes rather than develop a concise theory.

When Christ joined manhood to His Person, He united that which death had dispersed by the separation of the body. So Christ suffered that we should live forever. Alexander of Alexandria

The Word of the Father and the Sprit of God has become united with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation. So it rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual [Adam] we may all be made alive. Irenaeus

For it was fitting that the Evil One should be overcome by none other than man, whom he had deceived and of whom he was bosting that he held in subjection. For in no other way was it possible for sin and condemnation to be destroyed except by creating anew that same man on whose account it had been said, “dust you are and to dust you will return.” Only in this way could the sentence be undone that had gone forth on all because of [Adam]. Methodius

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why would we need a new birth if God now has nothing against us?

I told you why? Because nothing impure will enter into heaven. We must not only be declared righteous (justified), but we must also be made righteous.

And if we are predestined to be made into the image of Christ then when God judges the world we would have no sins against us by virtue of having died to sin and been remade in His image. God would have, in your theory, punished Jesus for our sins with no purpose.

No. Romans 3:25-26 applies.
No time to write more at present, but surely that is clear enough?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

According to your theory how was man reconciled to God in the person of Christ, by Christ's work, prior to the Resurrection?

I think you should answer some of my questions to you before you expect me to answer any more of yours.