-
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!
Atonement
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Wounded by whom for what reason?
Bruised by whom and how was it 'for our iniquities'?
Who chastised Him and how did it bring us peace?
Who inflicted the stripes and how are we healed by them?
How does Christ being made a curse for us redeem us from the curse of the law? And who made Christ a curse?
Who cut Him off from the land of the living and why did that do anything for the 'transgressions of my people'?
If your answers would take into account Isaiah 53:10 & Acts 4:28, that would be great.
The question is not what you say your beliefs are, but what you think they mean. Hence my questions.
Actually, I was always more interested in what you believe. You have told me. I asked some qualifying questions in this thread to make sure I understood you. I am satisfied that I understand your position as best as I am able to understand it. There are still some things that are not clear but in reading your posts I am not sure there is going to be any further clarity. What I am going to do is start a thread on Penal Substitution. The intent of that thread will be to make a positive case for the doctrine.
One of my oft-repeated refrains on this board is that our real audience is those who lurk. They read but never post. I try to keep that in mind. How likely is it that a thread on Calvinism or Arminianism is going to change a board members mind? The odds are long. However, we may never know the impact one of our posts has on a silent reader. That is why I like to have these discussions. I do appreciate that you and I have been able to discuss this topic without throwing bombs at each other. Hopefully, you will participate in the thread on Penal Substitution.
SDG!
The question is does the law condemn sinners to pay a penalty for their violation? Do you believe the Law requiers sinners outside of Christ to pay a penalty for their sins?
He has been judged for his sins. John 8:24. "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sin; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." They will die in their sins because they have no propitiation for them because they have not trusted in Christ.
I do not believe it creates a penalty that must be paid. Transgression results in a just condemnation (it is penal). But I do not believe it is a type od debt....if that helps.
Please identify "it" in the above sentence. Are you referring to the Law or are you referring to sins or something else? What do you mean by "create"?
Transgression of what? The Law?
In the first sentence above you say "it" does not create a penalty, but in this line you say transgression of something does result in penal condemnation? So, whatever "it" refers to cannot be what is being transgressed in this line, as the former does not end in penal condemnation whereas the latter does! Can't you speak plainly?
What is "od" debt?
Jon, you speak in riddles! What is "it" that does not "create" a penalty versus transgression of something that does end in penal condemnation? Can't you just speak plainly???
It seems that you intentionally speak in riddles and intentionally leaves things vague as you don't respond to all questions that I ask thus always leaving questions unanswered, and the further we go the more vague you become. Please answer each question above in a way that leaves no doubt about what you are saying. The purpose of this OP is for you to express your view clearly is it not?
Last edited:
The question is does the law condemn sinners to pay a penalty for their violation?
No.
Do you believe the Law requiers sinners outside of Christ to pay a penalty for their sins?
No.
Thank you! That was clear and to the point. Now please reconcile the two opposing statements that I pointed to in your last post. In one statement you said "it" does not create a penalty but in a following statement in the very same post you said "transgression results in a just condemnation (it is penal)". Please explain these contrasting statements by defining what is "it" and defining what is being transgressed that does result in penal condemnation.
Then what is Gehenna about if it is not a penalization of sinners? What do the words "judged according to their works" mean with regard to consequences? How do you define "penalty"?
Last edited:
so basically your view of the atonement is salvation from the power of sin rather than from any penal condemnation due to sin. So, since Christ had no sin, and was not under the power of sin, why wouldn't his righteous life be wholly sufficient without the cross, without death, without shedding of blood? Why would it be necessary for his blood to be shed especially since that phrase first used in Genesis was a penalization for murder?
Gen. 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
The difference os on how we view the results of sin.
I believe that the wages of sin is death (a physical death that all men will experience and that Christ experienced as He shared in our "sickness"). Because of the atonement we are freed from the bondage of sin and death. For us, death has "lost its sting"".
It is appointed to man once to die (physically as the wages of sin) and then the Judgment. We who are in Christ are not judged but those who do not belueve are condemned already for their disbelief. Because of their disbelief they remain in their sins. They are not delievered from the bondage (they are not raised to life but to corruption).
The wages of sin being death is penal on man (mankind) as a whole. But it ou s not a punishment individually (infants do not commit sin but they experience the consequences of being human).
At Judgment the lost are condemned. But the condemnation is turned from a violation of God's moral law (which is penal) to a condemnation based in Christ because of the atonement. We were all in the same condition and we would all have been cast into the look ake of fire when death is cast out (the second death).
But the atonement establishes a new covenant. It does not abolish the law (which is penal) but is a manifestation of God's righteousness apart from the law. The critera is changed from moral and penal (the law) to the gospel of Christ and the new covenant (the Father judges no one, but all judgment has been given to the Son).
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Exactly
This is contradictory. It is penal but it's not a debt to be paid? What do you think penal means?
Honestly, I think this might be borderline heresy. There is no penalty for sin? The Bible says otherwise as has been shown multiple times in this thread. At this point, this statement flies in direct opposition to Scripture. If there is no penalty for sin, everyone would go to heaven. They would not die. They would not have eternal torment in Hell.
Penal refers to punishment, not a debt to be paid. I have a mortgage. It is not penal, although it may feel that way.
I think viewing the idea that "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" as "not plausible" is at least "borderline heresy".
But other peoples opinions about what is heresy (which is often really concepts that oppose their view or they do not fully grasp) is inconsequential.
I think viewing the idea that "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" as "not plausible" is at least "borderline heresy".
But other people's opinions about what is heresy (which is often really concepts that oppose their view or they do not fully grasp) is inconsequential
I think viewing the idea that "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" as "not plausible" is at least "borderline heresy".
But other peoples opinions about what is heresy (which is often really concepts that oppose their view or they do not fully grasp) is inconsequential.
Penal refers to punishment, not a debt to be paid. I have a mortgage. It is not penal, although it may feel that way.
I think viewing the idea that "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" as "not plausible" is at least "borderline heresy".
But other people's opinions about what is heresy (which is often really concepts that oppose their view or they do not fully grasp) is inconsequential
So, let me see if I follow you correctly. So death with regard to mankind as a whole is a corporate "penal" judgement as it is the penalty for sin because the law is penal or carries penal consequences. Hence, it is appointed unto man once to die because that is the corporate penalty for sin. However, death was never an individual penalty for sin but merely the individual experience for being part of corporate mankind which was penalized thus. Thus, Christ suffered "death" only because that was the corporate penalty for sin, not because of any sin found in himself, but purely because that was part and parcel for being made flesh or being part of corporate mankind, thus for being part of mankind he was subjected to this "sickness" which inflicted all mankind. This whole corporate penalization for moral violation of God's Law existed only under the old covenant, or the law.
However, when Christ established the new covenant, the criteria for judging sin was changed due to the atonement from "penal and moral" condemnation to only "condemnation" for unbelief in Christ. Hence, because of the atonement sin and death are now no longer regarded by God as moral or penal condemnations corporately or individuallly but the only condemnation is unbelief in Christ. Hence, God was reconciled to the whole world by the atonement and now the only judge is Christ and the only condemnation is unbelief in Christ.
Those who remain in unbelief will be raised to corruption and condemned for unbelief and cast into Gehenna, not based on any kind of moral or penal condemnation but based upon their rejection of atonement.
So, based on the atonement the "penal and moral" criteria is removed for all mankind whether they are "in" or "outside" of Christ?
Is this what you believe?
Last edited:
Ok, so lets see if I understand you properly. YOu do believe there is just punishment for sin due to violating a just holy and good Law of God? However, you do not believe this punishment is to be regarded as a "debt", as in the example of a mortagage which you are obligated to pay?
May I ask, does God view your punishment for violating His Law as His legal and moral obligation to be administered to you due to his own holy and just standard? God is not obligated by his own holiness, righteousness and justice to administer penal consquences for violation of His good, just and holy Law?
Last edited:
Close. I believe that the law was penal. But I believe Christ cancled out the debt rhat was ascribed to us. This is a foundational point of the atonement. It is through the gospel and this "new covenant" that we are reconciled and urge others to be so.
I thought you denied "penal" could be described as a "debt"?
Am I to understand you that this is a universal atonement with regard to all human "penalty" and/or "debt" and that "we" (saints) are reconciled and we are to urge "others" (rest of lost world) to be so?
I guess the best way I can put it is that I believe all judgment has been given to the Son by the Father.
That said, I do believe the Father will judge our (believers) works. But not in a soteriological context.
- Status