-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Disagreements about the Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
You ever wonder how the actual wicked got wicked? Like maybe at some point they did something wicked?
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason I know that @JonC knows he is losing the discussion is that he is becoming more and more shrill and personal, and less and less Biblical.
I do indeed thank God with all my heart that the Lord Jesus has taken away my sin by paying the full atonement for them on the cross. One reason for this is that I know that I am a sinner, saved at terrible cost by the grace of God.
I am not the only sinner on this board. If @JonC has not joined with John and Charles Wesley in subscribing to their belief in 'sinless perfection,' he will know that he is one also. Due to the atoning death of Christ, His resurrection and ascension, believers receive the Holy Spirit (John 16:7; Acts 2:33 again!) and we are born anew. But that does not make is sinless. 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, but if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all iniquity' What cleanses us from iniquity? Walking in the light? No! Because we don't do it perfectly. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us from all iniquity.
We are saved by the blood of Christ. 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.' But for that very reason, Paul tells us, 'Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire and covetousness which is idolatry' (Col. 3:5). But however imperfectly, we do this not in order to be saved, but because we are saved! Read Romans 7:7-25. Paul ends up, 'For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wrethched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God - through Jesus Christ my Lord.'
Now there's stuff in those verses that would be good to discuss on another thread, but now, long after my bedtime, I just want to point out what debters to mercy we are. We all fall short in many ways (James 3:2), and it is no use saying as @JonC does, " We must die to sin. We must "die to the flesh". We must "put away our old self". We cannot do these things perfectly, and it is only because the Lord Jesus has paid for all our sins, past, present and future, that we shall be kept out of He. I repeat what I have said many times before: if Christ has not paid in full for our sins, we shall have to pay for them ourselves.
@Martin Marprelate
You do not understand.
I am saying that those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers , and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
At Judgment (this is what makes Scrioture different from Wesley's position) we will be perfected....we will be righteous. We will be made into His image.
This is the direct work of the cross.
We will not stand before God as wicked but forgiven souls. We will have died to sin, put away the "old self", been conformed to the image of Christ.
The Atonement is not an accounting loophole. God will never clear the wicked. God will never punish the righteous.
God recreates man.
The law does not make one a sinner. The law does not make one righteous.
Jesus is not righteous because He obeyed the law. Jesus fulfilled the law because He is righteous.
If God told you the depth of the cross you would reject His words. Because He did. And you did.
Christ's blood shed for us is so much more than you are allowing.
The Atonement was not a controversial topic for the first thousand years of our faith. Your theory did not exist. Anselm's theory (upon which yours was developed) did not exist.
The reason is the Atonement is basic. It is the "bones" supporting the body. God's words were taken a truth. And it is foundational to our faith.
Christians accepted God's words on the cross and moved on to maturity, to less basic things. You cannot do this if you exchange God's words for your theory. You will remain immature in the faith.
The cross is tge reconciliation of God and man - NOT merely an act of accounting so that the wicked will not be held accountable for their wickedness.
No, the wicked did not become wicked when they did wickedness. The Bible addresses this.
In Galatians 5 the wickedness is a result of men being wicked (sins are "fruits" of one in the flesh, a mind set on the flesh).
But this does explain why Calvinists focus so much on removing accountability rather than being conformed into the image of Christ.
The Elect at judgment will not be wicked souls who have had another account for their wickedness.
The cross is more substantial than you allow.
This thread is discussing two disagreements.
@Martin Marprelate views the cross as God as transferring our accountability for our actions to Christ, Christ suffering the punishment, and thus clearing man.
I view the cross as God reconciling man to Himself, not counting our sins against us, Christ being this reconciliation of God and man, the guarantor of a better covenant. In Christ we are predestined to be made like Him, predestined to righteousness and glory.
@Martin Marprelate views my view, that at Judgment God will have accomplished a work in us that conforms us to Christ's image, as Wesleyan theology.
@DaveXR650 holds that men become wicked when they sin. Therefore the problem of man is man's actions.
I believe that our sins are fruits of our wickedness (Gal 5), that we sin because we are wicked. Therefore the problem of man is man.
@Martin Marprelate views the cross as God as transferring our accountability for our actions to Christ, Christ suffering the punishment, and thus clearing man.
I view the cross as God reconciling man to Himself, not counting our sins against us, Christ being this reconciliation of God and man, the guarantor of a better covenant. In Christ we are predestined to be made like Him, predestined to righteousness and glory.
@Martin Marprelate views my view, that at Judgment God will have accomplished a work in us that conforms us to Christ's image, as Wesleyan theology.
@DaveXR650 holds that men become wicked when they sin. Therefore the problem of man is man's actions.
I believe that our sins are fruits of our wickedness (Gal 5), that we sin because we are wicked. Therefore the problem of man is man.
The reason this is important to discuss is where we start depends on where we end.
If @DaveXR650 is right and we become wicked because of our actions then our actions are what the Atonement needs to address.
If I am right and the problem is our nature then our nature is what the Atonement needs to address.
If @Martin Marprelate is right and what we need is another to take accountability for our actions in order to remove accountability from us then his view is on the right path.
If I am right and what we need is a Savior to reconcile us (not our actions but us) to God then my view is on the right path.
Given these two positiins we need to discuss whether our actions make us who we are or whether who we are dictates our actions.
We need to discuss whether the problem of man is the things we do (sins) or our very nature (of the flesh rather than of the Spirit).
When we differ in answering these types of questions we come up with views of the atonement that are very different.
If @DaveXR650 is right and we become wicked because of our actions then our actions are what the Atonement needs to address.
If I am right and the problem is our nature then our nature is what the Atonement needs to address.
If @Martin Marprelate is right and what we need is another to take accountability for our actions in order to remove accountability from us then his view is on the right path.
If I am right and what we need is a Savior to reconcile us (not our actions but us) to God then my view is on the right path.
Given these two positiins we need to discuss whether our actions make us who we are or whether who we are dictates our actions.
We need to discuss whether the problem of man is the things we do (sins) or our very nature (of the flesh rather than of the Spirit).
When we differ in answering these types of questions we come up with views of the atonement that are very different.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
First of all, you shouldn't start a new thread using a quote from someone else as the first post. That is misleading and I thought against the rules. But anyway:
No. And this is your constant technique. Take something someone else says, remold it into a different meaning, and then brilliantly attack the new meaning you gave it. You said "the problem is not the actions of the wicked but the actual wicked". My point, and it is correct, is that the actual wicked do wicked deeds. I was not saying that the actions of the wicked are not preceded by wicked intentions coming from a wicked heart. Nor did I say that God is not going to judge wickedness as a sin also. But, if you read Puritans, or ever looked at a confession, you would have known that because those things are addressed. You bring up Galatians 5 which in verse 21 does list character but ends by saying " those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God". Galatians 6:7 says "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".
I Corinthians chapter 6 discusses this, lists what people will not inherit the kingdom of God. People are listed as their label of character, based upon their committed deeds. Do not take my post, refuting another of your ridiculous assertions, and go off on another tangent which has nothing to do with your aberrant view of the Atonement.
So this is not what we need to discuss professor. It's not what I was talking about (which you have misrepresented in the original post) and it is clearly put in scripture and in confessions that man is a sinner, and man is a "doer" of sins, which have direct consequences. Both are taught. And therefore you were incorrect when you said "it is not the actions of wicked men" that is the problem. Let's stop the rabbit trails and address the fact that scripture explicitly says Jesus bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Either stick to the point, start another thread of your own origin, or explain how that verse does not include deeds.
Isn't starting "a new thread using a quote from someone else as the first post" what YOU just did?
One of the stranger features of @JonC's theology is that he seems to be clearer on what other people believe than he is about what he himself believes. I don't recall using the word "accountability" in any of my posts but that has not deterred him from claiming that I believe it.
However, let's get to the Scriptures. Isaiah 53:6. 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him [Christ] the iniquity of us all.' Note that it is not our "accountability," nor, in the light of @JonC's post #4. our sinfulness that is laid upon our Lord, but the sins themselves. Now this is Scripture; it is not @JonC's philosophy. Our sins were laid upon the Lord Jesus, and according to 1 Peter 2:24, He bore them in His own body. This can only mean that He paid the penalty for them (c.f. Isaiah 53:5, of course).
Now that does not change our sinful nature, but it does ake away our sins and enables God justly to see us as sinless (Heb. 10:17-18).
But God does not leave us where He finds us. Once His justice has been satisfied, Christ returns to heaven, and the Holy Spirit is poured our giving us that new heart and new spirit. But we are not made sinless. @JonC wrote on the previous thread, "We must die to sin. We must "die to the flesh". We must "put away our old self". This is an error. It has already happened through our union with Christ (Romans 6:1-2; Gal. 2:20). However, there is a remnant of sin that dwells, not in the essential us (Rom. 7:17, 20), but in our bodies, our flesh (v.18), and this sin is what is constantly seeking to bring us down, and we have to be utterly ruthless in putting it to death (Col. 3:1-10). But battle as we will, we will never put this sin utterly to death. In this life, we shall always be debtors to mercy (1 John 1:7-2:2). When Christ returns, of course, and we receive our new resurrection bodied, we shall, of course be finished with sin forever. I explained all this in more detail in the previous thread.
This is quite right, but only because Christ has taken away our sins.
I have been looking for the post where I wondered if you were into Wesleyan perfectionism, but I can't seem to find it. But what led me to wonder was your statement that "We must die to sin. We must "die to the flesh". We must "put away our old self". This seemed to me to be a form of prectionism, not to mention salvation by works.
No doubt @DaveXR650 will answer for himself, but I think you are in error to try to separate sins too far from sinfulness. We sin because we are sinful; we are sinful because we sin. But as I wrote above, 'And the LORD has laid our iniquities [sins, not sinfulness] on Him.' 'He Himself bore our sins [not sinfulness] in His own body on the tree.'
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
No Deacon. This is why I'm complaining. I did not start this thread.
One thing I have noticed is that when I try to be open minded and read theologians who like to explore all the inclusive and multifaceted aspects of the atonement you get into the problem @JonC illustrates on these threads. It seems that when we do that there is a danger of neglecting the actual taking of our sin upon Christ. Most don't go so far as denying this to be true, but there is a preference for the more ethereal and corporate aspects to be emphasized. Blood being shed of the most Holy One for our actual sins is gut wrenchingly humbling, especially when you are forced to take it personally, not corporately, and not with a theological or cosmic vagueness, that keeps us all in the same boat.
I urge everyone on here, to look up and read theologians who are against penal substitution. Read what they say, and even more importantly, read what else they say about other Christian theology and decide for yourself where you think they are coming from. You will become very concerned if you do this and understand why John Owen said that denial of penal substitution is a damnable heresy and why J. C. Ryle said it is the "core" of Christianity.
Where we end up on the Atonement is directly related to where we are on other things. I still have not found any theologian who denies PSA and is sound otherwise. That is not changing the subject or ad hominem attack.
No one is denying that our sins are a manifestation of what we are. That's why I don't like the way you started a new thread with me appearing to take that position, falsely, when I was answering an incorrect post you had made where you specifically denied that what we do matters. I get tired of you trying to obscure things with side arguments. Both things are in play. You do because of what you are and what you are is blameable because of what you do.
After all your lecturing on how you only use the Bible this is astounding. Jesus bore our nature in his own body on the cross I guess. Except that's not what it says. If you would humble yourself enough to realize that previous generations may have actually thought through some of these things you would realize that if you looked at a systematic theology, or if you just would keep all the other scriptures in your mind at the same time, you would understand that we indeed are given new natures, that we indeed must consciously repent and believe and avoid sin and pursue holiness or else we will not be saved - and, that at the Atonement Christ bore our sins in his own body on the cross. One being true does not make the other false.
This is precisely why you need to be careful about being a loner and developing your own private theology. There is a personal aspect of Bible study where you read scripture and with the help of the Holy Spirit improve your Christian life, find sin in your life, and become a better Christian. But if you find yourself developing a completely new theology at least pause and look into what others are saying before plunging in. If you don't you might just end up with the guys I find speaking out against PSA on the internet. Without exception, so far, they seem goofy and on dangerous ground in other areas.
I always think of my own favorite Puritan, Richard Baxter. As much as I have been helped by his practical writings, he, in trying to combat antinomianism, got so far off theologically that it caused huge problems later on.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't. I started it with post #5.
I actually was trying to discuss a point he and Martin brought up.
I did it, but post 1 should have been post 5.
No clue how that happened.
You are distracting from the actual subject.
Where we end up on our view of Atonement depends on where we start.
You said men become wicked when they sin. So your assumption is that our sins are the problem Atonement addresses.
I believe that sins are manifestations of our wickedness . So I believe the problem addressed by the Atonement is our nature.
Our views of the law also relates to this disagreement.
I view the law as unable to make one righteous or unrighteous. Instead the law is like a schoolmaster. It shows us our sins and we know we fall short of God's glory based on this "fruit".
Calvinists here have explained thar God imputes Christ's law keeping to us. They have explained that Jesus was made righteous through His keeping of the law.
If our actions is the problem of man then they could be right.
But I believe that Jesus is righteous, which is why He fulfills the law and why we fulfill the law in Him. We will be conformed to His image. We will actually be righteous.
So rather than ad hominem why not discuss the topic?
OK. I notice it was Ken who used accountability (he presented this as imputation also). Sorry if I took his comments as yours.
You believe that God takes our sins and puts those sins on Jesus.
Let's look at your idea. Let's narrow it down to one person (I will use myself as an example) and one sin you think was put on Jesus.
When I was 8 years old I stole a pack of gum. God took that action from me and put it on Jesus, literally (not accountability).
Obviously under the law Jesus would have to pay the store at least the price of the gum. But I am not interested in that part.
I want to know how, if not by accountability (not accounting for sin) that action became a material thing that could be moved around.
How did that sin literally get taken from me and put on Jesus if not by accountability because that sin was an action which can only be dealt with via accountability.
Exactly. That is why it is so important a topic. And that is why I believe we have to believe God's actual words on this one.
It is what I have called a "foundational" doctrine because other doctrines are built upon and depend on this one. So this is important to discuss. We are agreed on that anyway.
In terms of defending my position that sins are the fruits of our nature I offer
Matthew 3:8-10. Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Galatians 5:16-21 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, ... and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Matthew 7:17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Romans 8:9 Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
What evidence do you have that the "problem" of man is not man's nature but man's behavior (that one becomes wicked when they do wicked things)?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
37818
Well-Known Member
1 Corinthians 15:22, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
John 19:28, . . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . .
Hebrews 10:10, By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
I did. I was not sure what to make of it given your comment about the wicked getting to be wicked by doing wicked things. So I picked one and went with it.
I agree both things are in play, but not the same way you believe it.
What we do shows us what we are. That was the whole point of the law. It was weak through the flesh. It could not show our righteousness because we were not righteous.
I agree that we are held to blame under the law for what we do as the law looks at behavior, not wickedness.
But with the Atonement we are not talking about the law. We are talking about reconciliation to God in a manner that fulfills the law.
@Martin Marprelate quoted a verse stating that "God's anger is against the wicked every day". The very next verse is "If one does not repent, He will sharpen His sword".
If the righteousness of God was against wrongful behavior that second part of the verse would not exist (an act committed can not be taken back). God's wrath is against the wicked. The problem of man is not what we do but our nature. What we do is evidence of the problem we have. The wicked are not reconciled to God, regardless of how God views their actions.
In your opinion, what would Christ suffering God's punishment for our sins accomplish?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Well Jon. If you wish to say that this:
...is what is accomplished that would be fine with me. The answer is that Christ suffering God's punishment for our sins expiated or put away our sin.
The problem is our nature. No one is saying that it isn't. You are creating a false separation between what we do and who we are. We do what we are. The way you put it, scripture is wrong in passages where it is said that Jesus "bore" our sins. If scripture freely says "our sins" why do you have to object?
You seem to be stuck on pondering exactly how the inner workings of Christ actually reconciling us to the Father works. I would say don't try to do that. Jesus himself got to a point where he said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me". We can understand the physical pain of the method of his death but here we stand in awe and hopefully, silence. We can't possibly know what that meant. Somehow he bore our sins and reconciled all who would believe in him.
If you wish to read this in a beautiful and God honoring way I recommend G. Campbell Morgan. Most people don't know of him anymore but he was not a Calvinist, if that matters so much. I'm going to post some of what he said and I have a right to since this is apparently my thread now.
G. Campbell Morgan:
"Gazing then in astonishment at the sufferings of Christ I declare them to have been vicarious sufferings, expiatory sufferings, atoning sufferings.
They were vicarious sufferings, for he stood in man's place when He suffered. The penalty He bore had no relation to the life as lived. He stood connected with all human sin and failure, and seeing that He bore it, man is delivered from it. They were expiatory sufferings. Through what He bore, He exhausted human sin, He put it away, He made it not to be. They were atoning sufferings in that through them He has dealt with all that separated between man and God. He has now made possible the restoration of the lost fellowship, and man may henceforth live in communion with Him.
Thus has He solved the problems first suggested. By the way of that cross, and by that way alone, God might be just, that is, true to Himself in nature; and justify the sinner, that is place man into the position of one for whom sin is made not to be, and who is therefore clear from guilt."
My first follow up question would be how do you think being made like Jesus accomplishes justice? There seems to be a disconnect here with you. The whole problem is where do you get off thinking you can just be "made like Jesus" when you are a sinner, and not like Jesus. Jesus' atoning sacrifice removed your sin so now you can be made like Jesus and this can be done with God's sense of justice remaining intact. It's His plan, it involved immeasurable love towards us, it involves the whole Godhead, and it involves Jesus suffering in some incomprehensible way the wrath of God due sinners like us.
I think all this has been explained thoroughly many times. Since this is somehow my thread I am requesting it to be closed.
No, what I mean is Christ Himself is the fulfillment of the law (God's righteousness). The law is not fulfilled with punishment. The law prescribes punishments for offenses, but this is not a fulfillment of the law itself.
I actually am not pondering how the inner workings of Christ actually reconciling us to the Father works. I believe it works exactly as is written.
I really believe that God has predestined us to be like Christ, so much so that I believe He is the Firstborn of what will be many brethren. I believe God has predestined us in Christ to be righteous, to be glorified. This fulfills the law (by the law the righteousness are justified).
What I am asking you about is what exactly you believe God punishing Jesus for the behavior of what will be our "old selves" cast aside actually accomplishes.
I mean, since we will be sinless by virtue of being made like Christ, righteous, glorified, when God actually judges there must be a reason God had to punish Jesus for the actions of the "old man" who would not even exist at judgment.
For example, if you were to ask me what being made like Jesus accomplishes I would say it accomplishes our reconciliation to God. It fulfills the law. It accomplishes justice. It accomplishes our salvation.
And then you could ask follow ups on that to understand my position better.
What does God punishing Jesus actually accomplish?
There is not a disconnect. That was what I tried to discuss first (last week). We should explain how we define justice.
Anyway, how does being made in the image of Christ accomplish justice?
Because this means being made righteous and glorified.
First I'll address the law. Although we will not be made righteous through the law, we will be righteous by the standards of the law. We will be innocent of sin (having "cast away the old self", "died to sin", been "made a new creation in Christ"). The law shows us who we are. It shows us our sins. But at judgment it would show us our righteousness.
More importantly, though, I don't believe that justice is legal justice. Justice and righteousness is the same biblical word. The standard is not the law but God Himself.
How can we being made into the image of Christ not be justice? (Rhetorical question).
I also believe that the system of justice that should be used when discussing Scripture is tzedek rather than legal justice. The focus of justice for the Hebrews was restoration. Ultimately justice was viewed as bringing man to be consistent with God's righteousness. This is why you see God forgiving so many times, and offering forgiveness so many more times, based on repentance, turning from wickedness, turning to Him. This was not foreign to the Hebrew concept of justice. In fact, it was central to it. Punishment for the unrepentant was exclusion in some form from this just kingdom.
What does God punishing Jesus actually accomplish?
You actually have not answered that question (which is why I asked). You explained your view overall, which I appreciate, but you never got to this basic question. I was asking specifically for what this punishment itself accomplished (like how I answered you).
No, this is not your thread so you cannot request it be closed. Well, I mean, you can request it be closed but it will not be closed upon your request.
For clarification read post #13.
This is what I have been saying of your belief (why I find it too superficial).
Here are the steps you indicate:
1. The cross - God takes our sins from us and puts these actions on Jesus (not accounting for our sins, but literally takes those actions and places them on Jesus). Jesus then suffers the punishment for our actions. We are still wicked, but God can no longer hold us accountable for our actions because He already punished those actions on Jesus.
2. Christ returns to heaven (40 days after the Resurrection) and sends the Holy Spirit (10 days later).
3. Sometime in our lifetime (not getting into the order of regeneration) the Holy Spirit will give us a new heart and a new Spirit.
Other points you made:
We do not have to "put away the old self" abd "die to sin" because we did when put in Christ.
On the last point, I disagree. If we are not to die to sin daily I am not sure why Paul said that is what he did. I believe we are to take up our cross daily.
On the steps you indicate, this is what I mean by your theory being too superficial. God and man are not reconciled by God punishing our sins.
You already pointed this out when you said that God's anger is on the wicked.
I believe that Christ's death is the completed work of salvation. God was reconciling mankind to Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.
But I am pleased, at least, that you also believe that we will be righteous, glorified, and in Christ's image when God judges the world. I wish your view was a little more Christ-centered.
The issue, however, is this means Christ's death was if little or no value. Man is not reconciled to God until step 2, 50 days after the resurrection.
And God punishing Jesus for our sins was pretty much meaningless as we are recreated in the Holy Spirit (step 3) and dead to our "old self".
However, the main problem is you are viewing God punishing our sins on Jesus as the means by which we escape accountability for our actions.
What does Christ's blood, His death, His suffering accomplish?
To clarify - I get what you think God punishing our actions did. You answered this on another thread. You think it satisfied God's justice.
I am asking what Christ's suffering and death accomplished (as opposed to the Father exercising wrath).
@DaveXR650
I realize people hold differences even within the same general theology.
Do you agree with @Martin Marprelate about God literally taking our actions from us, putting them on Jesus, and punishing them there or do you side with those who view this as imputing as in accountability (removing it from our "debt" column and writing it in His)?
I asked what does God punishing Jesus actually accomplish. Do you agree with Martin that this accomplishes the demands of God's law (that God, being just, must punish sins regardless of the one who committed the sin)?
Also, it seems that everything you view Christ's death accomplishing has to do with the Father punishing sins to be just.
Does Christ's blood, His suffering and death accomplish anything or is it just the Father punishing sins that matters?
I realize people hold differences even within the same general theology.
Do you agree with @Martin Marprelate about God literally taking our actions from us, putting them on Jesus, and punishing them there or do you side with those who view this as imputing as in accountability (removing it from our "debt" column and writing it in His)?
I asked what does God punishing Jesus actually accomplish. Do you agree with Martin that this accomplishes the demands of God's law (that God, being just, must punish sins regardless of the one who committed the sin)?
Also, it seems that everything you view Christ's death accomplishing has to do with the Father punishing sins to be just.
Does Christ's blood, His suffering and death accomplish anything or is it just the Father punishing sins that matters?
@JonC, you seem to think that salvation ought to be something terribly complicated.JonC said:
I have no time at present to reply to your incessant flow of posts; only to say that the atonement is actually very simple. It is summed up in one word - love.
What was it, O our God,
Led The to give Thy Son,
To yield Thy Well-beloved
For us by sin undone?
'Twas love unbounded led Thee thus
To give Thy Well-beloved for us.
What led the Son of God
To leave His home on high,
To shed His precious blood,
To suffer and to die?
'Twas love, unbounded love to us,
Led Him to die and suffer thus.
What moved Thee to impart
Thy Spirit from above,
That He might fill our heart
With heavenly peace and love?
'Twas love, unbounded love to us,
Moved Thee to give Thy Spirit thus.
What love to Thee we owe,
Our God for all Thy grace!
Our hearts may well o'erflow
In everlasting praise:
Help us, O Lord to praise Thee thus
For all Thy boundless love to us. [Ann Gilbert, 1782-1866]
Actually I think salvation is simple. I believe the salvation of man was accomplished in full on the cross by Christ as He became the reconciliation of God and man.
I was asking about your belief because I find other people's beliefs interesting.
And I was only asking one question.
What did Christ accomplish on the cross in terms of our salvation (not the Father punishing the sins on Him but what did Christ actually accomplish)?
@DaveXR650.
The reason I ask these things is to understand your belief. I was a Calvinist, but not all Calvinism is the same (I leaned more towards Calvin and Beza).
You seem to draw on a fairly wide spread of views (some Puritian Calvinism, some historical Calvinism, some Paticular Baptist theology, some 19th and 20th century Presbyterian theology, etc) all blended into one understanding. That is perfectly fine, but it means I cannot make assumptions based on the "camp" you claim. Did you view Genesis 3 as Owen or Gill? (For example)
It just seems that if the cross was the Father offering His Son, laying our sins on Jesus and punishing them there so that we are not accountable...it seems we should be calling the Father "Savior" and Jesus "the Sacrifice".
I know you would disagree, and that is why I have been asking.
What did Christ accomplish on the cross for our salvation?
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I don't really know. I am completely self taught when it comes to theology. I might be wrong but I perceive that since I don't believe the atonement is limited in any functional way I must by definition look at it slightly differently than Owen would, no matter how much I respect him. With a strict limited atonement it would be impossible and morally wrong for Jesus to suffer one speck more for one more sin than that which is required to satisfy God's justice for the elect. I understand that the idea of such a limited atonement works in perfect harmony with the determination of God to save those elected for salvation and because of that the charges people make up about the elect not needing to repent and being free of sin whether you come to Christ or not - and so on are impossible. Still. I don't see the atonement like that.
I believe Christ's death completely satisfied all claims God could have against us, for our actual sins committed before we are saved, for sins committed after we are saved, for collective guilt we have either federally or genetically in Adam, for any claims Satan can bring against us, and for any barrier that would cause God to be unjust and against His own nature should he forgive us. I believe God has a natural reaction against sin and sinners we would describe as wrath and since he is God and therefore just, it is right that that be the case. That does not mean he doesn't love us and loved us first, before we love him. The atonement was not to placate God in a pagan sort of way but it was in a true sense God folding back upon himself the just deserts of our sin and condition. Yet I don't see how anyone now or in the first century who had a complete access to scripture and full knowledge of what happened to Jesus could possibly doubt that did not involve God's wrath against sin. With respect to R.C. Sproul, I do not think God was personally angry with Jesus.
Because I don't believe in a limited atonement in a structural way, I don't have the strict accounting in mind. I have no problem with the idea that one drop of Christ's blood had enough worth to save the whole world and I have full knowledge that some Romanist theologians said the same thing. So did Spurgeon for that matter. The atonement in my view is limited in that because of God's perfect knowledge he of course had in mind those who would be saved by Christ's death. I just say that functionally, no one was shut out at the atonement. Because I think so highly of Owen I should point out that he did not believe that anyone was shut out functionally either and he explicitly stated that if you come to Christ he will indeed save you as he has promised. So I have no problem with Owen's argument except that I think I am not going to far in saying to someone "Christ died for you" even if they are not yet saved. Once again, in fairness to Owen, he said that no one need worry about whether they are elect because it was a direct promise that if you come to Christ he will save you. You don't need to be doing theology even before you are saved.
And again, I have no problem with all the other things men write about the atoning work of Christ and I believe they are usually true. I can even understand how someone in the first century or in some countries even today, where Christians have a short life expectancy, might emphasize the rescue, the victory over darkness, and the parallels with the deliverance of Israel over our personal sinfulness and thus not put a primary emphasis on PSA. But, if you look, there is always a point where God is dealing with our sin and indeed it is somehow put on Jesus for him to bear. To openly deny that aspect, with full knowledge, is a damnable heresy, like Owen said.