How do you read?

[Hans Deventer]

1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (NRSV)

So how is it that God is just when He actually forgives?

[Benjamin Burch]

1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (NRSV)

So how is it that God is just when He actually forgives?

Because God has promised that God would forgive any who are contrite and repent. God has said that God wishes that we come and repent, so that God might be quick to forgive.

[Hans Deventer]

Because God has promised that God would forgive any who are contrite and repent. God has said that God wishes that we come and repent, so that God might be quick to forgive.

In other words, He is just because He sticks to his own rules?

[Zach Wingo]

It's my understanding that when Jesus died on the cross, he took upon himself the sins of all men and therefore the penalty for all sin has been paid for and thus it would be unjust for God not to forgive those who come to him seeking it because in a sense he would be punishing the sin twice. At least that's how I understand it.

[Hans Deventer]

It's my understanding that when Jesus died on the cross, he took upon himself the sins of all men and therefore the penalty for all sin has been paid for and thus it would be unjust for God not to forgive those who come to him seeking it because in a sense he would be punishing the sin twice. At least that's how I understand it.

Zach, if "the penalty for all sin has been paid for", the logical conclusion is universalism. I think we need to look somewhere else, I do not believe in the penal substitution theory.

[Randy Wise]

1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (NRSV)

So how is it that God is just when He actually forgives?

All have sinned except one. It would be a empty world without mercy. I think since God sets the bar with the same terms and conditions for all that can be seen as fair and just. Also Christ Jesus did enter the tabernacle in Heaven by His blood. It is written in Isaiah 53 that He took the punishment do the people. So there has to be some sense of atonement in the act of the cross no matter what theory you subscribe to. (sanctified)

R.

[Hans Deventer]

It is written in Isaiah 53 that He took the punishment do the people.

That only depends on your translation. By far not all translations use the word punishment, and it is the ONLY place in the Scriptures to indicate this idea. So I reject the "proof". It's too shallow to build a complete atonement theory upon. I rather see His death as "a sacrifice of atonement" (Rom 3:25), a demonstration of God's love for us (Rom 5:8)

[Randy Wise]

That only depends on your translation. By far not all translations use the word punishment, and it is the ONLY place in the Scriptures to indicate this idea. So I reject the "proof". It's too shallow to build a complete atonement theory upon. I rather see His death as "a sacrifice of atonement" (Rom 3:25), a demonstration of God's love for us (Rom 5:8)

Fine with me. Whatever theory you subscribe to.

Point of law brought up by Paul in regard to atonement. Hebrews 9:22

R.

[Hans Deventer]

Point of law brought up by Paul in regard to atonement. Hebrews 9:22

So the animals were punished because they were used for atonement? That's a strange concept.

But the thread has been helpful. It shows the pervasiveness of the judicial way of reading the Scriptures, what I consider to be the curse of the Western church. I don't believe this is what John is saying at all.



1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; 7 but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

My take is that God's justice, his righteousness (both coming from the Greek "dikaios") are actually His saving work in this world.



16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith.' (Rom 1)


So John is writing that God is faithful to his saving purpose, which is his justice. Which isn't merely, or not even primarily, balancing the scales of justice or doing what He must do because of some law, but his gracious salvation. It is "the blood of Jesus his Son that cleanses us from all sin". It means He will "forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness". It will enable us to "walk in the light as he himself is in the light" and give us His Spirit in order that we "may not sin."

[Randy Wise]

So the animals were punished because they were used for atonement? That's a strange concept.



I don't subscribe to penal sub. theory. I was pointing out the act of the cross has importance in the forgiveness of sin. Jesus asked the Father "to let that cup pass if possible" Well we know Gods love for the world didn't let that cup pass. We know Jesus wasn't forsaken. (right hand of God)

R.

[Hans Deventer]

I was pointing out the the act of the cross has importance in the forgiveness of sin.

Oh, definitely. No disagreement at all here.

[Marsha Lynn]

I don't subscribe to penal sub. theory. I was pointing out the act of the cross has importance in the forgiveness of sin.

But God forgave sins before the cross. I know that some say the cross was retroactive. However, I see no indication whatsoever in the Old Testament that God was forgiving sins on the basis of some future event. He was forgiving sins because he is full of compassion and mercy.

Hans, are you saying that it is wrong (unjust) at some level to cancel the punishment for (forgive) a repentant offender? Would it be considered just if those who repent have already suffered for their misdeeds in seeing the enormity of them and experiencing profound remorse?

I sometimes wonder about the point of prosecuting a mother whose child died in a car accident while the mother was driving with the child unrestrained. Let's see. We could force her to watch her child die as a direct result of her own actions. Oh wait, that has already happened. What greater punishment do we have in our arsenal of sentencing for "failure to use proper child restraint" once that most "cruel and unusual" punishment has been applied?

Wouldn't exacting greater punishment on someone who has truly recognized their sin and experienced the remorse of that recognition fall along these same lines? Not that we deserve to be forgiven, but I'm not sure forgiving the truly remorseful means they have not experienced sufficient pain as a consequence of their actions, even if they are somehow spared the natural consequences of living outside God's laws.

Marsha

[Ryan Scott]

I read this verse as simply describing God as "faithful and just" not that God is those things because he forgives.


Sort of like saying, "If you buy him a ticket, Hans, who is Christian and Dutch, will come visit you."

[Randy Wise]

But God forgave sins before the cross. I know that some say the cross was retroactive. However, I see no indication whatsoever in the Old Testament that God was forgiving sins on the basis of some future event. He was forgiving sins because he is full of compassion and mercy.



Marsha

God left the sins "unpunished" for those outside of the law given to Israel which adds to the justification for forgiveness of those under law as well via Christ for those found in Christ. God is no longer willing to leave sins "unpunished" (We are not free to sin) and God was no longer willing to leave people living in darkness and ignorance. The gospel message was first preached in a world with many false Gods and many different customs. I don't share your view that those who willfully reject Christ have eternal life.

romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

So in the context God is no longer looking the other way the wrath of God has also been announced via the full gospel message. (We are not free to sin)

I don't see angels in the world who are so loving and caring that they apart from Christ have eternal life and are free from the power of sin. Neither did the apostles "all have sinned..."

Randy

[Benjamin Burch]

In other words, He is just because He sticks to his own rules?

Not rules. God is just because God does what God says God will do. God's word is good.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, are you saying that it is wrong (unjust) at some level to cancel the punishment for (forgive) a repentant offender?

Most certainly! At the regular level of justice, it is. Would you consider it justice if someone murdered your entire family but says before the judge that he's sorry, so the judge lets him go? I would say in the regular meaning of the word, that is not justice.

But my point is that this meaning is insufficient to account for what God means with "justice". His justice includes restoration. Of people being brought back into the family of man, and of the wrongdoing being healed and if needed, restored.


Would it be considered just if those who repent have already suffered for their misdeeds in seeing the enormity of them and experiencing profound remorse?

In the end, I believe that without the restoration of the crime/sin/wrongdoing, there is no justice. What we regularly call justice, isn't. It's merely a regulated form of revenge.

[Hans Deventer]

Not rules. God is just because God does what God says God will do. God's word is good.

I'm trying to explain that I think Biblical righteousness includes salvation.

[Randy Wise]

It's my understanding that when Jesus died on the cross, he took upon himself the sins of all men and therefore the penalty for all sin has been paid for and thus it would be unjust for God not to forgive those who come to him seeking it because in a sense he would be punishing the sin twice. At least that's how I understand it.

The theories can overlap somewhat. Sacrifice of atonement is the one that makes the most sense to me. That is Jesus is depicted as a High Priest entering the true tabernacle in heaven by HIS blood. So the removal of sin required that better sacrifice than the blood of animals. God sent the lamb so did He really need to punish? Jesus's act was seen in accordence with the Law with His blood a step above the blood of animals (guilt offering?) But the purpose may be more than a guilt offering as we are baptised into Christs death and ressurrection which wouldn't make any sense if Jesus's physical body didn't die and rise again.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

I'm trying to explain that I think Biblical righteousness includes salvation.

God judges in righteousness and by His righteousness. So I used the word righteouesness twice. I leave now:smilies1722:

[Todd Erickson]

1 John 1:9 - If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (NRSV)

So how is it that God is just when He actually forgives?

Grammatical parsing issue here, Hans.

"If we confess our sins, he (who is faithful and just - descriptor, not part of the sentence as a whole...as well as say "the red ball) will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from unrighteousness."

[Hans Deventer]

Grammatical parsing issue here, Hans.

"If we confess our sins, he (who is faithful and just - descriptor, not part of the sentence as a whole...as well as say "the red ball) will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from unrighteousness."

Ah, I get it! John could also have written, "He who has black hair and a red coat", because it's an irrelevant piece of information.

Kind of like "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. ", where "his Son" is also irrelevant. Could also have been "the Galilean carpenter", "the son of Joseph", "the brother of James", "the child of Mary", whatever.

[Hans Deventer]

God judges in righteousness and by His righteousness. So I used the word righteouesness twice. I leave now:smilies1722:

This was your 666th post. And it shows, Randy ;)

[Randy Wise]

This was your 666th post. And it shows, Randy ;)


Thanks for letting me know! 667 whew!

[Todd Erickson]

Ah, I get it! John could also have written, "He who has black hair and a red coat", because it's an irrelevant piece of information.

Kind of like "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. ", where "his Son" is also irrelevant. Could also have been "the Galilean carpenter", "the son of Joseph", "the brother of James", "the child of Mary", whatever.

You'll note it was characteristic of the time for the writers to throw in titles (the Son of Man) and descriptors (he is faithful and just) on things as emphasis. They were not trying to build logical arguments about why they were saying was so.

So yes, using "child of Mary" or "Brother of James" or "who overcomes the world" is all native to how they wrote. It would be like me saying "And then Hans who is grammatically improbable and strange of humor stated that Shea had poor taste in hats", my descriptor about your humor and grammar has no bearing on what you're saying about Shea's hat.

[Billy Cox]

Sort of like saying, "If you buy him a ticket, Hans, who is Christian and Dutch, will come visit you."

Okay, but do I have to feed him too?

[John Kennedy]

This was your 666th post. And it shows, Randy ;)

Do we have possible 'accuser of the brethren' issues here?

[Zach Wingo]

Zach, if "the penalty for all sin has been paid for", the logical conclusion is universalism. I think we need to look somewhere else, I do not believe in the penal substitution theory.

No, the logical conclusion is only universalism if you are proof-texting. What then was the purpose of Christ's death?

[Todd Erickson]

No, the logical conclusion is only universalism if you are proof-texting. What then was the purpose of Christ's death?

What was the purpose of Christ's death if not to pay for all sin?

[Zach Wingo]

What was the purpose of Christ's death if not to pay for all sin?

Are you sure you meant to ask me that? Did you read my comments and Hans' response?

[Hans Deventer]

No, the logical conclusion is only universalism if you are proof-texting. What then was the purpose of Christ's death?

I'm not proof texting at all, since that very concept isn't in the Scriptures! Which is exactly what I am trying to say.

As to the answer to the second question, read post #7. In general though, for our salvation. And of course you are including the resurrection because without out, we would all still be in our sins. (1 Cor 15:17)

BTW, for anyone really interested in the topic, it's very much worth it to delve into Larry Shelton's Cross and Covenant (http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Covenant-R-Larry-Shelton/dp/1932805672). A true eye opener and Biblical to the core.

There's a good review there that I agree with:



The author maintains that traditional evangelical penal substitution theory of the atonement can be a hindrance to mission in both the postmodern context and in non-Western indigenous missional cultures. He challenges the exclusive claims that the penal view is the only orthodox evangelical position. This book seeks to provide a model of the atonement that is relevant to post-modern people, biblical, and Trinitarian. To do this he engages in a study of atonement in the Old Testament and New Testament as well as the history of theology. He argues that if covenant is taken as the central core of atonement theology we can do justice both to the diversity of biblical ways of speaking of atonement and the diversity of atonement models in Christian theology. The incarnation, cross, and resurrection of Christ are all essential to his atoning work. He makes use of the image of his own life-saving heart transplant operation to understand the atonement. The book is academic reading, but well-researched and a valuable resource for communicating with the postmodern and global culture. (italics mine)

[Randy Wise]

I'm not proof texting at all, since that very concept isn't in the Scriptures! Which is exactly what I am trying to say.

As to the answer to the second question, read post #7. In general though, for our salvation. And of course you are including the resurrection because without out, we would all still be in our sins. (1 Cor 15:17)

BTW, for anyone really interested in the topic, it's very much worth it to delve into Larry Shelton's Cross and Covenant (http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Covenant-R-Larry-Shelton/dp/1932805672). A true eye opener and Biblical to the core.

There's a good review there that I agree with:


The author maintains that traditional evangelical penal substitution theory of the atonement can be a hindrance to mission in both the postmodern context and in non-Western indigenous missional cultures. He challenges the exclusive claims that the penal view is the only orthodox evangelical position. This book seeks to provide a model of the atonement that is relevant to post-modern people, biblical, and Trinitarian. To do this he engages in a study of atonement in the Old Testament and New Testament as well as the history of theology. He argues that if covenant is taken as the central core of atonement theology we can do justice both to the diversity of biblical ways of speaking of atonement and the diversity of atonement models in Christian theology. The incarnation, cross, and resurrection of Christ are all essential to his atoning work. He makes use of the image of his own life-saving heart transplant operation to understand the atonement. The book is academic reading, but well-researched and a valuable resource for communicating with the postmodern and global culture. (italics mine)


Well I was steered to Jesus from the start by my Mother before I even thought of theologies and I always believed in my heart that Jesus was a real alive person. i am not so sure then how I read all the atonement theories as a stumbling block to those that might believe in Jesus.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Well I was steered to Jesus from the start by my Mother before I even thought of theologies and I always believed in my heart that Jesus was a real alive person. i am not so sure then how I read all the atonement theories as a stumbling block to those that might believe in Jesus.

Randy

But you are not post-modern nor non-Western, are you?

[Randy Wise]

But you are not post-modern nor non-Western, are you?

The gospel message was first preached in a world with many false Gods and many different customs. Are you making a case that the many theologies are confusing the gospel message?

R.

[Zach Wingo]

Can you define post-modern?

You say Jesus died for our salvation but how does his death, burial and resurrection secure that apart from a penal substitution?

In my first comment, did you disagree with the idea that all men are justified through his death or did you only disagree with the idea of penal substitution?

[Benjamin Burch]

You say Jesus died for our salvation but how does his death, burial and resurrection secure that apart from a penal substitution?

I honestly don't understand how this is a question. It's one thing to believe that Christ's death did serve as a penal substitution, and it's also one thing to think the Bible says so, but to ask how it could possibly accomplish salvation apart from this theory makes no sense.

Ever since the very beginning of Christianity there have been tons of theories which did not include a penal substitution. They've always been options on the table, for 2,000 years. To ask "how?" seems dishonest.

[Zach Wingo]

To ask "how?" seems dishonest.

To question the validity and honesty of my question shows your ignorance.

[Benjamin Burch]

To question the validity and honesty of my question shows your ignorance.

Well,

1) I'm not ignorant on this subject at all.
2) I didn't question your honesty at all. I said it seems a certain way. I know there are plenty of explanations for why someone would ask this question, the most prominent one actually being their ignorance of other atonement theories, Church history, etc.

I didn't once say you were being dishonest, or that I thought you were.

[Zach Wingo]

Well,
I didn't once say you were being dishonest, or that I thought you were.

And I didn't say you were ignorant, I just said it shows your ignorance.

[Benjamin Burch]

And I didn't say you were ignorant, I just said it shows your ignorance.

One who has ignorance is ignorant or something...?? So, you actually kind of did say it. Anyways...

What do you mean with your original question that I said seemed dishonest? Do you not actually know the other atonement theories available? Do you know and reject them? Are you just testing to see if Hans can articulate the "how" well enough?

[Zach Wingo]

Do you not actually know the other atonement theories available?

No, I'm not aware of any. I know there are some, but I never remember hearing them and I wanted to know in Hans' opinion how he believed it could.

[Hans Deventer]

The gospel message was first preached in a world with many false Gods and many different customs. Are you making a case that the many theologies are confusing the gospel message?

No, I would use the word "distorting".

[Hans Deventer]

No, I'm not aware of any. I know there are some, but I never remember hearing them and I wanted to know in Hans' opinion how he believed it could.

And Ben is the ignorant one? Wow.

Anyway, I pointed you towards a great resource of how I look at this issue. Now if you are truly interested, I would say, delve into it. You'll no doubt agree that the issue is important enough not to try and solve it in a few lines.

[Zach Wingo]

And Ben is the ignorant one? Wow.

Okay... :rolleyes:

[Hans Deventer]

Okay.


Can you define post-modern?

Post modern is anything that comes after the modern age, which itself came after the medieval age, which came after the classical age etc. In a transitional time like ours, of course these changes cannot be neatly defined, since obviously things are still emerging. Even in retrospect, it is quite debatable when exactly "medieval" ended and "modern" started. Should be no surprise if it's no different this time around.


You say Jesus died for our salvation but how does his death, burial and resurrection secure that apart from a penal substitution?

Salvation can be easily and biblically explained in convenantial terms, because that's the way God has always worked. It includes God's initiative, actions and faithfulness, and man's continued faithful response. Likewise, both the old and the new covenant provide for breaches = sins.

Several OT images come together in Christ: the sin offering, the Paschal lamb, the goat at Yom Kippur, the covenantial offering (see for instance Genesis 15), the redemption out of trouble (see for a beautiful example Boaz in the book of Ruth). In none of these cases, the sacrifice is used as a punishment. For all clarity, I do believe in substitution, as I do believe that we are to be united with Him and share His fate (see Romans 6)

The new covenant is new in the sense that it:

(1) includes the power to fulfil the commands (Rom 8:3 "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit")

(2) Is an unprecedented display of the love of God (Rom 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.")

(3) is God fulfilling the Torah in the one true man, Jesus Christ

(4) includes the incarnation, the most amazing step God ever took!

(5) etc etc etc. This isn't a full fledged theory of the atonement in half a page! :)


In my first comment, did you disagree with the idea that all men are justified through his death or did you only disagree with the idea of penal substitution?

I believe all men are justified through his death in potential. Salvation always requires a response. I disagree with "penal", not with "substitution". It is quite obvious that Christ did what none of us could have done, and He did it for us.

[Todd Erickson]

Can you define post-modern?

You say Jesus died for our salvation but how does his death, burial and resurrection secure that apart from a penal substitution?

In my first comment, did you disagree with the idea that all men are justified through his death or did you only disagree with the idea of penal substitution?

In the classic modern calvinist view, you cling to penal substitution where, because of God's wrath, God must lash out an punish (for no purpose other than to express that perfect wrath) and did so to Jesus so as not to hurt anybody else.

This view is incompatible with the Wesleyan view of Love, where Love is the prime attribute of God, and all other attributes, including wrath, serve Love, rather than themselves.

We do not hold to penal substitution because we not see God paying Himself, or needing to hurt somebody just to serve wrath in order to serve Himself. Rather, Jesus takes the place of Sin, and allows God to eradicate the price of sin, so that man kind may accept life instead. Jesus creates a way; he doesn't take a blow in our place.

If your mother taught you that God was angry, and He had to take that anger out on somebody, and so Jesus let God take that anger out on Him, and you still cling to this, I'm sorry for you.

[Zach Wingo]

...Rather, Jesus takes the place of Sin, and allows God to eradicate the price of
sin, so that man kind may accept life instead. Jesus creates a way; he doesn't take a blow in our place.

I've never thought of Jesus as taking a punishment or "blow" in my place because God was "angry". I've always believed sin has a cost (ie. Death). I have never seen God as being angry, but broken hearted because of his love for us, so Christ died in our place. I never believed it was out of anger, but rather out of necessity because of justice. I believe God hates sin and what it does to us. I don't know where this view falls among all the theories but I know I've always disagreed with the angry God of Calvinists.

[Todd Erickson]

I've never thought of Jesus as taking a punishment or "blow" in my place because God was "angry". I've always believed sin has a cost (ie. Death). I have never seen God as being angry, but broken hearted because of his love for us, so Christ died in our place. I never believed it was out of anger, but rather out of necessity because of justice. I believe God hates sin and what it does to us. I don't know where this view falls among all the theories but I know I've always disagreed with the angry God of Calvinists.

Then why do you need to adhere to the Penal Substitution view of atonement, rather than one of the others that exist where what Jesus was doing was ending the power of death and sin, rather than paying the price that God needed paid? What does Justice entail, and who does it serve, in your view of creation?

[Paul DeBaufer]

In the classic modern calvinist view, you cling to penal substitution where, because of God's wrath, God must lash out an punish (for no purpose other than to express that perfect wrath) and did so to Jesus so as not to hurt anybody else.

This view is incompatible with the Wesleyan view of Love, where Love is the prime attribute of God, and all other attributes, including wrath, serve Love, rather than themselves.

We do not hold to penal substitution because we not see God paying Himself, or needing to hurt somebody just to serve wrath in order to serve Himself. Rather, Jesus takes the place of Sin, and allows God to eradicate the price of sin, so that man kind may accept life instead. Jesus creates a way; he doesn't take a blow in our place.

If your mother taught you that God was angry, and He had to take that anger out on somebody, and so Jesus let God take that anger out on Him, and you still cling to this, I'm sorry for you.

Might I suggest that God's nature, God Himself is love. That out of this flows His attributes, e.g., sovereign, creative, just, powerful, etc. I know that the distinction is subtle, yet I think it is important, especially to theories of atonement.

[Zach Wingo]

Then why do you need to adhere to the Penal Substitution view of atonement, rather than one of the others that exist...

Because I have never heard these other views taught.



What does Justice entail, and who does it serve, in your view of creation?

I believe the scripture teaches that sin requires death. I believe it is an injustice not to punish sin and consequently I believe Jesus died in our place both for the sake of justice and to break the power of sin and death. I don't believe it had/has anything to do with God being angry and wanting to take out that anger. I believe he does it out of love and compassion.

[Hans Deventer]

I believe the scripture teaches that sin requires death. I believe it is an injustice not to punish sin and consequently I believe Jesus died in our place both for the sake of justice and to break the power of sin and death. I don't believe it had/has anything to do with God being angry and wanting to take out that anger. I believe he does it out of love and compassion.

Zach, you are SO right. It definitely is an injustice not to punish sin. And we call that injustice "grace", unmerited favour. You've hit the nail on the head, this is the very core of the issue.

Penal Substitution requires justice (from a human point of view, for it is a human theory) more than anything else. I do not. I live by grace. And God is more loving than just (in the regular human sense) exactly because of grace, which by definition is totally unfair and unjust.

The PS theory, as I can see it, undermines grace in order to satisfy our human need for justice in God. It turns grace into a component of a system!!! While the very point of the Bible is that God gives us grace which is totally, completely and utterly unmerited. Hence all the abuses of the PST. It either turns into limited atonement or universalism, because it is all about a transaction in stead of grace. There is no payment for sin. If it were, nobody in the whole world would stand condemned, or Jesus would only have died for the elect. I totally deny both as unbliblical.

[Benjamin Burch]

Because I have never heard these other views taught.
I believe the scripture teaches that sin requires death.

I think it's so unfortunate that we've inherited this way of reading Scripture. Death is not the "price" that must be paid for sin, it is the end result of sin. It is the sorrowful result of where sin leads.

It does not require death, it brings death.

"For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Rom. 6:23

Wages are what we are paid in Romans... "Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." - Romans 4:4-5

We simply cannot understand Romans 6:23 out of this context. Sin is a personified slave-master who is paying wages to those who have served it.



I believe it is an injustice not to punish sin and consequently I believe Jesus died in our place both for the sake of justice and to break the power of sin and death. I don't believe it had/has anything to do with God being angry and wanting to take out that anger. I believe he does it out of love and compassion.

I think this is a misleading sentence. It had to do with God's justice requiring someone die, not God's anger? I'm sorry, I don't really see a difference in all honesty. If someone angrily wants to kill me for what I've done wrong, or kindly and calmly wants to kill me for what I've done wrong... it's the same thing.

To me this whole understanding makes "mercy" pretty meaningless. Someone must have justice in order to give mercy? What kind of mercy are we serving? Doesn't seem so merciful in the end if this giver of mercy is requiring someone to take the fall.

It is the Parable of the Merciless Servant which, to me, destroys this concept of "God must punish sin or God is unjust." God's merciful injustice just may be God's version of justice, and we resist it so strongly in Western Christianity - to our own peril.

In the Parable of the Merciless Servant, no justice is found when mercy is given. The king freely forgives the debt without any payment from anyone, with no reception of justice, this king gives mercy. This is the model of God's forgiveness.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think this is a misleading sentence. It had to do with God's justice requiring someone die, not God's anger? I'm sorry, I don't really see a difference in all honesty. If someone angrily wants to kill me for what I've done wrong, or kindly and calmly wants to kill me for what I've done wrong... it's the same thing.

I am reminded of the concept of "friendly" fire, that idea that it is somehow better if one is killed by his own side than killed by the enemy. There is no such thing as friendly fire. If someone is shooting you, killing you it is not friendly. So I must agree with you here Ben, I don't see the difference either.

[Zach Wingo]

So you believe God simply overlooks sin?

[Todd Erickson]

I believe the scripture teaches that sin requires death. I believe it is an injustice not to punish sin and consequently I believe Jesus died in our place both for the sake of justice and to break the power of sin and death. I don't believe it had/has anything to do with God being angry and wanting to take out that anger. I believe he does it out of love and compassion.

According to how God spoke of Adam and Eve in the garden, and how Jesus and his disciples (especially John) speak in the NT, all humans are already dead. The death that is spoken of as a result of sin has nothing to do with whether you're walking around, or six feet under. Everybody is already dead.

We miss this a lot. People turn it into a metaphor, or they say that it will lead to it, but God doesn't do that. God says that we're already dead... what we regard as death is, to God, sleeping, because it's just a change of state. Neither earthly existence or Sheol are really, truly, alive.

Christ came to bring true life. What John refers to as the Aeon Zoe, Eternal Life. Christ says that those who abide in Him, who live in Him, have this sort of experience that happens now, not after they die, and they find actual life here and now, they are no longer dead. He's not saying this in a metaphorical way, or making some sort of play about something that happens after we die. He's talking about actual life, here and now.

Christ died to break the power of death that was already upon the earth, so that those who chose to could truly live. Now.

Because God is Love, because God is compassionate, God took on flesh and interacted directly with our reality to provide a doorway to life.

[Todd Erickson]

So you believe God simply overlooks sin?

I think that sin is far more systemic and contextual than we like to believe. We talk about things like perfection and eradication, as if somehow by individually not engaging in what we so lightly identify as "sin", we can somehow be free.

But we live in societies that are bound by power and destruction, and we are part of those societies by living in them. We will never be truly free of sin, no matter how personally good we are, because we are a relational people, created by a relational God.

You could move off into the woods, and just not take part in society at all, so that you would not be exploiting anybody. But then you would be denying the image of Christ in others, by removing yourself from them, and denying the image of Christ in yourself.

Our job is not to avoid sin, but to engage in true life, and bring that life to others. In a life truly engaged in life, there is less and less room for sin.

God doesn't want to make us good. He wants us to aid Him in bringing True Life to the world.

[Zach Wingo]

What I mean is, you believe all this talk in the bible about the consequences of sin means nothing because God simply forgets and forgive it simply because he can? There is no justice for any sin...it's simply overlooked and forgotten?

Your views describe a generous God, but one who injust. I fail to see why a penal substitution is unloving?

[Hans Deventer]

What I mean is, you believe all this talk in the bible about the consequences of sin means nothing because God simply forgets and forgive it simply because he can? There is no justice for any sin...it's simply overlooked and forgotten?

YES, YES, YES!!!! But at incredible expense!!! It costed the Son of God his very life. This is NO cheap grace (Bonhoeffer)!!!

Zach, GOD IS INJUST from a human point of view, because grace is injust! That is its very meaning. That's the point all along! You need to let go of viewing the Scriptures through the glasses of human justice, for they distort.

God's justice, righteousness, is his grace, his forgiving, his salvation.

Read just as an example, I could quote the entire Scriptures:



5 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’
7 Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the Lord lives who brought the people of Israel up out of the land of Egypt’, 8but ‘As the Lord lives who brought out and led the offspring of the house of Israel out of the land of the north and out of all the lands where he had driven them.’ Then they shall live in their own land. (Jeremia 23)

But I've got a question for you, what is grace, what is mercy? Could you define that for me? If it isn't an (humanly spoken) unjust forgiving of sins, what is it?

[Zach Wingo]

YES, YES, YES!!!! But at incredible expense!!! It costed the Son of God his very life. This is NO cheap grace (Bonhoeffer)!!!


But that means if God can just forgive sin because he chooses to, the death of Christ was unnecessary and in vain, was it not? Why would Christ need to die?

[Hans Deventer]

But that means if God can just forgive sin because he chooses to, the death of Christ was unnecessary and in vain, was it not? Why would Christ need to die?

Wait a minute, I wrote "But at incredible expense!!! It costed the Son of God his very life." and you're saying "the death of Christ was unnecessary and in vain"? Do you really read what I'm writing? Have you read the first chapter of Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship on cheap and precious grace?

But to answer the question, let's ask Him:



Matthew 26:27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I keep repeating myself till I'm looking blue in the face, it seems, but the context is the covenant. If you don't understand how forgiveness works within a covenantial context, you've got some work ahead of you.

But it's up to you now, second time: What is grace, Zach?

(BTW, one of the reasons for this forum was NOT to have these discussions which people who don't want to change their mind on this issue anyway. I'm presuming you're not part of that company.)

[Zach Wingo]

I define grace as: Undeserved and unearned favor.
I define Mercy as: Not giving us what we do deserve.

I understand the covenant thing but it wasn't necessary. If God can simply forgive sins then he didn't need a covenant to confirm it. With your view I don't see how the death of Christ was necessary.

[Benjamin Burch]

So you believe God simply overlooks sin?

I think God mercifully forgives those who repent, as the Scriptures say God is anxious to do.

I don't understand this question. I don't mean you, I mean this question in general. I get asked this a lot, and it makes no sense. It is not a question which comes from Scripture.

God is not "overlooking" sin... God is forgiving those who repent. This is what Scripture says God does, from Genesis to Revelation. Somehow we interjected this odd middle-thing where GOd has to do something other than what God said God would do.

[Zach Wingo]

Somehow we interjected this odd middle-thing where GOd has to do something other than what God said God would do.

What I don't understand then is why all the sacrifices and regulations? Why make covenants and why did Jesus have to die? Why aren't we still in the garden? Couldn't God have simply forgiven Adam and Even then and leave us there?

BTW, these are all honest questions as this is all new to me.

[Benjamin Burch]

What I mean is, you believe all this talk in the bible about the consequences of sin means nothing because God simply forgets and forgive it simply because he can? There is no justice for any sin...it's simply overlooked and forgotten?

You seem to keep missing a radically important step - repentance.

And also, another radically important step - discipleship.

God is not just running around willy-nilly waving a wand and saying "forgiven!", "Forgiven!", "forgotten!"

God is listening to the prayers of those who are broken and contrite enough to call upon the name of the Lord and beg for mercy, and God is gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love, and good, and ready to relent from punishing.

So there is still plenty of consequences for unrepentant sin. Why does this conversation seem to go the same way every time I have it, with every individual? They seem to not be able to distinguish between repentance, and sin that is not repented of. The Bible makes a very, very, very big deal out of the difference between those two.


Your views describe a generous God, but one who injust. I fail to see why a penal substitution is unloving?

I would not say it is "unloving." I would say it gives us a god who is unable to be truly merciful. It does not give us the God so vibrantly spoken of in Scripture. It gives us a boring god who sits as judge in the courtroom and while witnessing the defendant pleading... cannot find it in their heart to forgive them unless someone receives the punishment. It does not give us the God of Scripture who looks on the defendant with pity and tells them to go, and sin no more.

It does not give us an "unloving" god. It gives us a weak god who is barely capable of more than you and I.

[Benjamin Burch]

I define Mercy as: Not giving us what we do deserve.



Right... not giving out justice for sin, but mercifully forgiving those who repent...

[Benjamin Burch]

But that means if God can just forgive sin because he chooses to, the death of Christ was unnecessary and in vain, was it not? Why would Christ need to die?

If Christ had not died, whose death would we be baptized into? If Christ had not died, how could Christ be resurrected? And if Christ had not been resurrected, how could we be united with him in a resurrection like his?

Christ needed to die, so that we might live.

God became human, so that humans might become [like] God.

Christ had to die, so that we might be united with Christ and have our old selves put to death. If anyone is in Christ, they are a new creation! The deeds of the body have been put to death.

I would suggest that it is only because we've lost the powerful theology of theosis, and mystical union, that we have come to lean so heavily on PSA.

[Benjamin Burch]

What I don't understand then is why all the sacrifices and regulations?

Well, in the Old Testament there were many functions which the sacrifices performed.

- They mediated the presence of God (when the sacrifice was made, YHWH was present - this should have significant meaning for our understanding of the Eucharist).

- The blood was believed to have the ability to "wash" or "cleanse" sin. Wiping it away.

- Sacrifices reminded the people that sin had a cost, a price. Not a punishment, but it was costly, it was destructive, detrimental. The financial cost of sacrificing an animal (or buying one to sacrifice) was a powerful reminder of the destructive nature of sin.

There were other things, too. I'll have to try and do some searching where I've written it before... when it's not 4am. :)



Why make covenants

Technically, God made one covenant - God just renewed it a few times.

Why? There are a few ways to look at it. The typical Christian way to look at it is that after the fall, God took on a plan to set the world right, and God put this plan together through a covenant with a particular people. According to the New Testament, the Covenant was in order to bring about the Messiah who would bring salvation to the world - particularly gentiles. According to the Old testament, both are true to an extent, in different ways... but it also functions simply as a contract between a people and their patron deity. God chose Israel simply because God chose Israel, and God loved Israel more than any other people, and so God covenanted with them, promising to be their God.




and why did Jesus have to die?

Tried to answer that here. (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5729-How-do-you-read&p=94647&viewfull=1#post94647)

The ultimate Christian answer is that God experienced what we experience, so as to redeem humanity. "What was not assumed, was not redeemed." God could only redeem death through death. We often miss this radically Christian, Early Christian, and Pauline soteriology for a fabricated soteriology (Penal Substitution) which we falsely attribute to Paul because it makes us feel good in Protestant Christianity.




Why aren't we still in the garden? Couldn't God have simply forgiven Adam and Even then and leave us there?

This is a very complex question, with a few available answers.

1) We could read Genesis 2:4b-ff for what it actually is trying to tell us - Election, Land, Law, Sin, Exile, Grace. It is not a story about human origins as much as it is a story about Israel's history.

a)God creates a people (Adam/Eve) out of the baren dust,
b)picks them up, places them in a land which is rich with vegetation,
c)gives them a law,
d)promises them death if they break it,
e)they break the law,
f)God does not carry out God's punishment, instead, God shows them mercy,
g) God kicks them out of the land
h) the God who walks in this story follows them out into the wilderness and is there with them later

If we are listening to what Scripture says, and not what we want to hear, we will not hear a historical/scientific story of how God created anything. We'll hear Israel's story...

a) God created a people (Israel) out of the dust of the Sinai and Egypt deserts
b) God takes these people and places them in a land which is "flowing with milk and honey".
c) God gives them a law, torah, commandments to follow
d) promises harsh penalties and destruction if they break it
e) they break it
f) God does not fully destroy them, but was merciful and "leaves a remnant"
g) God kicks them out of the land
h) the God who is the "God of Israel" and the God who "lives in Jerusalem" follows Israel out into Babylon, so as to be with them.

That's the Scriptural answer that Genesis 2:4b-ff wants you to hear.

But, if you're not interested in that story (a lot of people aren't) and insist on the more "literal" (which isn't literal at all) interpretation... I suggest the second option, a very, very ancient Christian option:

2) Adam was not created perfect, but had the capacity to grow and learn with God, moving on towards perfection. Instead of choosing that route, Adam chose to disobey God, and thus went off and started a trajectory in the wrong direction. God entered into human form so as to recapitulate this, and through God's Son humanity has once again been put back on the path to God. (I could explain that one some more when it's not 4am if you'd like).



BTW, these are all honest questions as this is all new to me.

I'm not saying they aren't honest questions! :)

[Benjamin Burch]

What I mean is, you believe all this talk in the bible about the consequences of sin means nothing because God simply forgets and forgive it simply because he can? There is no justice for any sin...it's simply overlooked and forgotten?

Your views describe a generous God, but one who injust.

I'm not trying to be rude here, I promise. But this is not Scriptural language or questions, here. This sounds a lot like Jonah... He was upset that God forgave the Ninevites when they repented (without any sacrifice at all), and he complained to God and said that's why he didn't want to go to Nineva in the first place! He knew God was gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love, good to all, and ready to relent from punishing.

His problem was "there was no justice for sin... it was simply overlooked." "God simply forgave because God can."

Jonah had problems with all of this, and God just kinda laughed at Jonah and gave him a cute little plant to cover his poor little bald head so it wouldn't burn while Jonah sulked and complained in the hot sun.

But we're usually too focused on the big fish (which is a tiny, tiny part of Jonah) and teaching our kids about big fish, and we don't actually get what Jonah is all about.

[Randy Wise]

But that means if God can just forgive sin because he chooses to, the death of Christ was unnecessary and in vain, was it not? Why would Christ need to die?

It wasn't the just covering of sin (forgiving) it was the removal of sin in the believer as the Gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out (washing of rebirth) and we are changed (a new creation) and such gifts required a greater offering (Christs blood) in Gods mind as it was God who sent Jesus and Jesus proclaimed the Fathers message. I don't believe God gives that Holy Spirit baptism which was and is poured out in Jesus's name to unbelievers as it is received by faith in Christ. We are not only forgiven but free from the power of sin. So God can forgive but in the past that didn't change the people who continued to sin. The one born of God will not continue to sin according to 1john so such changes were noted in the text.

Atonement theories overlap which adds to confusion and debate. Keep in mind that the world outside of israel wasn't under a law that included punishments per transgression as Christs sacrifice is also shown in the context of meeting the righteous requirement of the law. Though we certainly believe that the gospel message now holds all (accountable) (wrath of God) even though the message is one of hope and reconciliation.

[Randy Wise]

How do you read?

Once asked our sins are forgiven unlike the old covenant with israel which reminded people of their sin over and over and didn't change them.


I also see communion as a celebration of what was already done in believers by Christ and not a old sacrificial system.


R.

[Hans Deventer]

I define grace as: Undeserved and unearned favor.
I define Mercy as: Not giving us what we do deserve.


Good! So what exactly is just about grace and mercy? Exactly, nothing.


I understand the covenant thing but it wasn't necessary.

You will have to take that one up with God.

[Zach Wingo]

So your God won't give his spirit unless someone dies as an offering, a gift, an offering? I'm really failing to understand how this is a better theory than penal substitution. I'm going to order the book you mention earlier and hope it explains something I'm missing.

[Dale Cozby]

Not rules. God is just because God does what God says God will do. God's word is good.I agree with Ben. God is right(just) to forgive because He said He would.

[Randy Wise]

So your God won't give his spirit unless someone dies as an offering, a gift, an offering?.

That was part of it wasn't it? The first covenant was introduced with a offering ? Jesus's blood was noted as a superior offering. "Our" God can do what He wants. What we read in the text was how God introduced a new covenant and how He writes that new covenant on our hearts. Everyone of us wrestle with atonement theories. (Our answers aren't the final truth) So don't feel left out.

R.

[Benjamin Burch]

So your God won't give his spirit unless someone dies as an offering, a gift, an offering? I'm really failing to understand how this is a better theory than penal substitution. I'm going to order the book you mention earlier and hope it explains something I'm missing.

Zach,

It would be helpful if you quoted the person you're responding to, here. It's hard to figure out if you're responding to Hans, or myself, and what you mean by it. Thank you in advance for helping here.

[Hans Deventer]

So your God won't give his spirit unless someone dies as an offering, a gift, an offering? I'm really failing to understand how this is a better theory than penal substitution. I'm going to order the book you mention earlier and hope it explains something I'm missing.

I still hope we share the same God, Zach.

[Dale Cozby]

Good! So what exactly is just about grace and mercy? Exactly, nothing.

Justice is about making things right, not punishing the guilty. Making things right requires grace and mercy. Without those, there can be no justice.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Justice is about making things right, not punishing the guilty. Making things right requires grace and mercy. Without those, there can be no justice.

I like this. But I think Hans has a point that for most humans we see in justice fairness, the eye for an eye thing. If someone does wrong we want them punished appropriately (oft times appropriately is vastly imbalanced toward the punishment side) so that the scales are balanced. I am not sure this is actual justice, but it is what we mostly mean when we speak of it.

[Hans Deventer]

Justice is about making things right, not punishing the guilty. Making things right requires grace and mercy. Without those, there can be no justice.

You're exactly right, Dale. Therefore I was qualifying the word "justice" all the time.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm going to order the book you mention earlier and hope it explains something I'm missing.

Thank you. You will not be disappointed.

[Randy Wise]

Justice is about making things right, not punishing the guilty. Making things right requires grace and mercy. Without those, there can be no justice.

When God gets angry, and it is His to avenge, we use the term "righteous" anger.
R.

[Steven Martinez]

I want to re-stress one of Ben's 800 points. There is a great amount of ignorance regarding the book of Leviticus (one of my favorite books by the way) in the Church. IMHO, most people do not actually read it. It does not take long in reading the book where we discover that there are several sacrifices given to Israel and not all of them are merely sin related. We have to remember that Christ is the perfect or complete sacrifice meaning that He fulfilled all of the sacrifices, not just the sin and guilt sacrifices. The most important sacrifice of the year for the average Israelite was the Peace Offering or sacrifice which required an animal to be killed but a portion of the sacrifice was to be eaten by the family. The meal was sacred in that the premise was that this was a shared meal between God and us. We were ate the same table, essentially God was inviting us to sup with Him and He was pronouncing us to be His children. Even that awesome image of being one with God (atonement) at the dinner table required the shedding of blood. Sure, Christ is the Guilt and Sin Offering, but He is also the Peace Offering, bringing us to the family of God.

The last couple of years has really been interesting in regards to sacrifice and life. Being on the transplant list means that your only chance to live is for someone to surrender the body of a loved one who has just been lost. Realizing that I will live because someone else has died is a very powerful thought. Every decision I make now I make with the subconscious thought of, "Am I living a life now that is truly worth the death of another?" Is that not the question that all Christians should ask?

[Hans Deventer]

The last couple of years has really been interesting in regards to sacrifice and life. Being on the transplant list means that your only chance to live is for someone to surrender the body of a loved one who has just been lost. Realizing that I will live because someone else has died is a very powerful thought. Every decision I make now I make with the subconscious thought of, "Am I living a life now that is truly worth the death of another?" Is that not the question that all Christians should ask?

That's exactly how Larry Shelton starts out in "Cross and Covenant", having been the recipient of a transplant as well.

[Gina Stevenson]

Really good food for tho't there, Steven ... some heavy-duty tho't food .......

[Billy Cox]

That's exactly how Larry Shelton starts out in "Cross and Covenant", having been the recipient of a transplant as well.

Maybe that's why my atonement theology is so unconventional. My kidney donor didn't die. ;)

[Randy Wise]

I define grace as: Undeserved and unearned favor.
I define Mercy as: Not giving us what we do deserve.

I understand the covenant thing but it wasn't necessary. If God can simply forgive sins then he didn't need a covenant to confirm it. With your view I don't see how the death of Christ was necessary.

Zach, I hope you are doing well. I don't think the answer lies in post modern thought but back in the law as Paul uses scripture as his source of understanding.

So how about if we see Christ as paying the penalty of the law in regard to a guilt offering rather than the penalty of the law in regard to replacement punishment. There was a penalty written in the law that required a guilt offering not someone being put to death as punishment. Paul wrote that the removal of sin required a better sacrifice and Christ Jesus is depicted as entering the Tabernacle in Heaven by His blood. (guilt offering/atonement). Can you see Christ Jesus as a guilt offering in atonement theory rather then penal sub. ? Still needed/required for the removal of guilt but a different context then God needed to punish. Just food for thought. You don't have to agree but I think its a valid premise.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Zach, I hope you are doing well. I don't think the answer lies in post modern thought but back in the law as Paul uses scripture as his source of understanding.

So how about if we see Christ as paying the penalty of the law in regard to a guilt offering rather than the penalty of the law in regard to replacement punishment. There was a penalty written in the law that required a guilt offering not someone being put to death as punishment. Paul wrote that the removal of sin required a better sacrifice and Christ Jesus is depicted as entering the Tabernacle in Heaven by His blood. (guilt offering/atonement). Can you see Christ Jesus as a guilt offering in atonement theory rather then penal sub. ? Still needed/required for the removal of guilt but a different context then God needed to punish. Just food for thought. You don't have to agree but I think its a valid premise.

Randy

I'm not Zach but I believe you're definitely heading in the right direction.

[James Diggs]

I think it's so unfortunate that we've inherited this way of reading Scripture. Death is not the "price" that must be paid for sin, it is the end result of sin. It is the sorrowful result of where sin leads.

It does not require death, it brings death.

"For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Rom. 6:23

Wages are what we are paid in Romans... "Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." - Romans 4:4-5

We simply cannot understand Romans 6:23 out of this context. Sin is a personified slave-master who is paying wages to those who have served it.

Awesome- Thank you Ben!!!!


So you believe God simply overlooks sin?

"...But where sin abounded, grace super-abounded" - Paul