Atonement Views

Isaiah 53:10

10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Whatever he endured caused him to sweat blood just thinking of it.

3. Christ recieved the punishment of sinners on the cross, but it was not the punishment of all sinners. God would not give double punishment, but God did not die for the whole world, so only those for whom Christ died will escape punishment, but those for whom Christ was not punished, will recieve their own punishment.

But Christ was the "penal" substitute for the sinner, and I think it is safe to say that the atonement is limited. It is limited to those who repent and put faith in Christ. To anyone else the atonement makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe you have left out a big point here and that is that Christ did die for the whole world "He tasted death for every man" but the atonement is only good for those who repent and place faith in Christ. Which would mean having faith in the work of the cross.
We are justified by faith in His blood are we not? Therefore we must understand that Jesus took my place on the cross, He bore my crimes and transgressions. Then we must put believe that the penalty has been paid, and then it makes more sense that if He died as me, then I died, and now He lives(Galatian 2:20)
Maybe it's the same idea just a different name.

This is called the "Moral Government" perspective of the cross. It was actually the perspective of the atonement that Jonathon Edwards, a great man of God, and a very serious Calvinist, held to. And it is also the view that Charles Finney held to, who was Americas greatests Revivalists.

I see that the "Moral Government" perspective of the cross as the only possible alternative. To believe in the punishment perspective you must believe that either 1. God gives double punishment for the same sin. 2. Everyone will make it into Heaven. Or 3. God did not love the whole world.

But Christ was the "penal" substitute for the sinner, and I think it is safe to say that the atonement is limited. It is limited to those who repent and put faith in Christ.

I am with you on your general presentation here but the statement 'atonement is limited' is a technical term for something quite different to what you are saying here. TULIP Calvinisits believe that 'limited atonement' or 'particular redemption' was only ever intended for the 'unconditionally elect'. You, and others, may believe this but you can believe in 'Redemption; Accomplished and Applied' without being a 5 star Calvinist.

Understanding the "punishment" view of the atonement, I see that there are three possible views within this over all view.
1. If Christ received the punishment of the entire world, but some do not make it to Heaven when they die, but will be punished in hell, then God in effect issues double punishment for one sin.
We could call this the double punishment view.
2. If Christ received the punishment of the entire world, but God is too just to give double punishment for one sin, then all sin has been punished, so the world will will make it into Heaven.
We call this Universalism.
3. Christ received the punishment of sinners on the cross, but it was not the punishment of all sinners. God would not give double punishment, but God did not die for the whole world, so only those for whom Christ died will escape punishment, but those for whom Christ was not punished, will receive their own punishment.
This is called Limited Atonement.

For those who do not hold to the 'Moral Government' view of atonement, what are your comments regarding his understanding of the punishment view?

For those who do not hold to the 'Moral Government' view of atonement, what are your comments regarding his understanding of the punishment view?

Why did the Father inflict this upon the Son, (with the Son's permission of course)?

Here is a link to a very good article discussing Finney's view of the atonement in light of the "orthodox" view.

[url=http://www.gospeljohn.com/mgatonement.htm]http://www.gospeljohn.com/mgatonement.htm[/url]

Here is a link to a very good article discussing Finney's view of the atonement in light of the "orthodox" view.

Thank you this is a comprehensive and thoughtful refutation of Finney's ideas on Atonement.

I've been thinking about the thought connection between this and the thread on original sin. Finney, was nothing if not logical, and there is a logical connection between his view of sin and his view of atonement.

If the nature of sin is acquirable by an individual there is a presumption that it is also curable. Consequently Finney's view of Sin doesn't really require Substitutionary Atonement. It just needs a reversal of the action that got me into that fix to begin with. Hence his views of an "Atonement" that shames us into shaping up and putting things right; the Moral Government Atonement theory.

The ongoing issue here is that a thorough-going Finneyist will face the threat of constant oscillation between being 'in Adam' the consequence of his last sin, or being 'in Christ' the consequence of his last exercise of faith. I see no hint of this knife-edge Christian existence in the scripture.

Some early Salvationists held the view that you could be saved and lost dozens of times and ultimate salvation depended on the state of grace in the last seconds of life. This would certainly be compatible with Finney's views and there is at least one forum member on Sermonindex who has experienced the stress caused by this view of things. It is a very short step from this to 'justification by sanctification' which is a deadly virus that sometimes afflicts holiness teaching.

Finney's view is that Christ did not so much 'die instead of us' but 'for us' in the sense of an example of the serious nature of sin. I don't think this squares with Paul's simple testimony...[color=0000ff]“...the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20 KJVS)[/color] nor that of Peter [color=0000ff]“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” (1Pet 3:18 KJVS)[/color]

philologos wrote:

Here is a link to a very good article discussing Finney's view of the atonement in light of the "orthodox" view.

Thank you this is a comprehensive and thoughtful refutation of Finney's ideas on Atonement.

I've been thinking about the thought connection between this and the thread on original sin. Finney, was nothing if not logical, and there is a logical connection between his view of sin and his view of atonement.

If you enjoyed the article on Atonement and see a connection between them all, you may also like these articles by the same author.

[url=http://gospeljohn.com/mgsinful.htm]The Sinful Nature - Fallacies of Moral Government Theology (Modern Day Finneyism)[/url]

[url=http://gospeljohn.com/mgjustification.htm]Justification By Faith - Fallacies of Moral Government Theology (Modern Day Finneyism)[/url]

EDIT: The atonement article was actually the third in the series.

It also plays a part on what it is to have "a change of nature."

Here are a few posts I put on another message board on this subject that show what I mean.

I guess what seems hard for me to grasp is that if they are merely trained to sin, why can they not be trained not to sin? How would that action turn into a "nature." I haven't listened to that Pratney teaching in about a year or so, but I think he explained the two views of what "nature means.

Nature can mean something that a person is naturally inclined to do or it is instinctive (inbred) in them to do. Nature can also mean something someone habitually does. Ex. "I know John lies a lot. That is just his nature." When someone makes that statement he is not saying John was born to lie, but rather that is "just the way he is." So, if nature is not what a person is inbred to do, then it is their habitual action.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't see it possible to not believe you are born with a "sinful nature" and believe that Christian still has an "old sinful nature." Because it's not a Christian's "nature" to sin. Are you following me?

In my mind, the two are connected. If you believe in a Christian having a "sinful nature" then you have to believe that nature means that is what they are inbred to do. If you believe that nature is something that is habitually done, then you can't believe Christians have a "sinful nature." Because we all agree Christians don't habitually sin.

This is surely why Jesse rejects the view of a Christian having a dual nature since he doesn't believe in "original sin." At least as far as any version resembling the reformed tradition. By the way, not everyone who believes in inbred sin believes that Christians still have sinful natures. Those that hold that view believe that the old nature is killed and we now are partakers of the divine nature.

and

I've been thinking some about this topic and wondering what is does to being born again, regeneration, conversion, ect. If nature merely means a habitual action, then there is no need for a change of heart. All that is needed is a change of will. I think Finney believed that the heart was the same as the will. That is the only way you could really put it to make it consistant if there is no corrupted nature- and you interpret nature to NOT be what is naturally inclined, but only your habitual action.

Below is what John Wesley said about this topic. My thoughts arn't nearly as strong as his, but it does share some of the same concerns I have (mainly what is in bold.)

Also, could anyone ever call sin a disease and Jesus the cure? How can something be a disease if it is always a mere action? How could being born again be anything other than a 'decision?' What does it mean to "have a change of nature?" Is it mere self-reformation to the "moral law" of God?

2. Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, “We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation.” But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? or, to come back to the text, is “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?” Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.

3. We may learn from hence, in the Third place, what is the proper nature of religion, of the religion of Jesus Christ. It is therapeia psyches, God’s method of healing a soul which is thus diseased. Hereby the great Physician of souls applies medicines to heal this sickness; to restore human nature, totally corrupted in all its faculties. God heals all our Atheism by the knowledge of Himself, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of God, and of the things of God, — in particular, of this important truth, “Christ loved me” — and gave himself for me.” By repentance and lowliness of heart, the deadly disease of pride is healed; that of self-will by resignation, a meek and thankful submission to the will of God; and for the love of the world in all its branches, the love of God is the sovereign remedy. Now, this is properly religion, “faith” thus “working by love;” working the genuine meek humility, entire deadness to the world, with a loving, thankful acquiescence in, and conformity to, the whole will and word of God.

4. Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind. The superfluity of godliness would then be a more proper expression than the “superfluity of naughtiness.” For an outside religion, without any godliness at all, would suffice to all rational intents and purposes. It does, accordingly, suffice, in the judgment of those who deny this corruption of our nature. They make very little more of religion than the famous Mr. Hobbes did of reason. According to him, reason is only “a well-ordered train of words:” According to them, religion is only a well-ordered train of words and actions. And they speak consistently with themselves; for if the inside be not full of wickedness, if this be clean already, what remains, but to “cleanse the outside of the cup?” Outward reformation, if their supposition be just, is indeed the one thing needful.

The ongoing issue here is that a thorough-going Finneyist will face the threat of constant oscillation between being 'in Adam' the consequence of his last sin, or being 'in Christ' the consequence of his last exercise of faith. I see no hint of this knife-edge Christian existence in the scripture.

I was raised to believe that if your last act in this life was a sin, no matter how large or small, you are going to hell. In reaction to this theology some have turned to the opposite view of unconditional eternal security.

The more I read Finney's theological works the more I realize that he did not understand biblical salvation and would have done well not to write on many aspects of the subject at all. Preaching repentance and holding revivals and many things he has written on the subject is good, I think. However, his motive is to eliminate the security of a believer all together and keep them guessing with no real assurance at all of their final salvation. Simply put, no perfection = no assurance. Calling folk to examine themselves is one thing- but to put them in examination mode 24/7/365 the rest of their lives is something quite different.

At the end of the day it results in a do-it-yourself spirituality. This was a reaction to his times in which folk (as he put it) were just sitting around waiting on God to do something. But I think his was an overreaction. This is typical of folk correcting doctrinal errors.

In the streets we have to preach the Gospel. The Born Again experience is not the same as mere repentance and a change of mind. It is not a compulsion to live righteously brought on by God's demonstration of public justice in the crucifixion of Christ; it is a NEW CREATURE. This is a creative miracle in which God as surely changes a person as if He had healed them of palsy, deafness, blindness, or any other thing. This is not a self-help reformation- this is genuine regeneration. This is a new creation.

Any other Gospel offers a person no real chance to be changed long term- but a life of fear and dread wondering if they measure up or not. Those would follow out to the end Finney's theology offer no real freedom from the inward ongoing struggle, but a renewed reason to fight harder as they see Christ's death on the cross and the flames of hell in their eye. This is little or nothing more than what the Jews had in Judaism.

We need to preach the WHOLE Gospel. We need to quit trying to be God and allow the Gospel to be the Gospel. We need to quit eliminating certain truths from scripture thinking we can manipulate people into living righteous lives through fear and no assurance. Examine yourselves? Yes, but whether ye be in the faith. No whether ye measure up to some man made code of ethic. God knows how to deal with His kids. We don't have to threaten them with orphanage to keep them acting right in the house. We just need to take hold of the full counsel of God and stop extrapolating parts of the whole for our own purposes. We have to do this God's way or it will not work right.

Sermonindex posted on another thread:

If this does not humble you

(Thomas Brooks, "The Unsearchable Riches of Christ")

Dwell much upon the greatness of God's mercy and
goodness to you. Nothing humbles and breaks the
heart, like God's mercy and love. In Luke 7, the Lord
Jesus shows mercy to that notorious sinner, and then
she falls down at His feet, and loves much and weeps
much, etc.

Oh, if ever you would have your souls kept humble,
dwell upon the free grace and love of God to you in
Christ! Dwell upon . . .
the firstness of His love,
the freeness of His love,
the greatness of His love,
the fullness of His love,
the unchangeableness of His love,
the everlastingness of His love, and
the ardency of His love.
If this does not humble you, there is nothing
on earth which will do it. Dwell upon what God has
undertaken for you. Dwell upon the choice and
worthy gifts which He has bestowed on you. Dwell
upon that eternal glory and happiness which He has
prepared for you--and then be proud if you can.

This is a wonderful piece of writing. In keeping with this thread I wish to bring out another aspect of the government of God weakness as I have personally experienced them. Not that I was raised in Oberlin Theology, but a 'version' of the whole "little or no assurance" soteriology.

I read this and would like to enjoy the fulness of what the writer is saying. But under the theology I was raised the work of Christ is continually on 'loan' pending my behavior. The gift CAN be taken back and you may not even own it now (depending on how you are measuring up). This has a serious effect on how a person appreciates something they may not really be getting. It comes off almost like a bad sales pitch or something in which the person don't really know what exactly they are getting. Not that I should plan to do wrong by any means, but the 'salvation' I am referring to is so utterly conditional that one cannot rest in God's love. The whole relationship is uptight and tense. No time to reflect on God's love because one is never sure God really loves them as they may have sinned and are now 'hated' by God. Just being real here. This theology can be brutal and counterproductive. If it was intended to scare folk into righteous living then it may actually be scaring them off from God all together in some cases.

Since our punishment is eternal hell, and eternal hell is the punishment of each individual sinner, then there would need to be a single Christ, for each single sinner, who is eternally burning in hell. But we know that Christ is not burning in hell, which very simply concludes Christ did not recieve our punishment.

Isn't our "punishment" death (eternal)? Christ died physically to pay for our deaths.

There is no need for more "Christs" Jesus was God in the flesh and was able to bear the sins of the world and take the wrath of God on the cross.

Lazaru wrote s

Probably the most popular view of the atonement through all of Church history has been the "punishment" view.

You have only mentioned two views and having rejected one, assume the other must be correct. This list is some of the views that I could find: Christus Victor, Ransom, Scapegoating, Physical Theory, Moral Influence, Divine satisfaction, Penalty or Punishment satisfaction, Vicarious Repentance, Governmental, Substitutionary atonement.

Perhaps, when think about the atonemnet, we need to think about what Christ was doing on the cross? What was the problem that He was trying to deal with? And my own thinking is still developing in this area, so I am putting out ideas for comment rather than providing all the answers. At least one aspect was that we need a new heart/spirit (the classic verses in Ezekiel and Jeremiah tell us we do), if so then how what needs to be done to make that happen? Remember a spirit continues to exist, having consciousness and be alert forever once it is created (that will be the terror of the lake of fire, aware and conscious, but always separated). Yet our spirit, God tells us, is dead, and what is death? In God's terms separation from Him. So what do you need to do to, bring back to life a spirit that it dead, and yet alert and concious. Well, I'm not sure I know (except of course it is the cross of Christ, but how?) but what I do know is that we are dealing with something that is outside the realm of the natural man. I can't think of anything in nature, where one brings back to life something that is dead, and yet while dead continues to feel and to know etc. God has already turned on its head our understanding of what death is. So we are dealing in a realm that I can only really understand by revelation. Somehow the cross of Christ enabled me to be put to death and raised in newness of life, with a new spirit, and able to receive His Holy Spirit, without destroying me and leaving my personality (if that's the right word) to continue. You can see why the thread on Original Sin and Christ's forsakenness in the Trinity Questions thread going on elsewhere on this website are so important. If there is original sin and we are separated from God at a spiritual level, though still able to hear Him speak, then somehow Christ being forsaken will provide an answer for our forsakenness, spiritually. For the record, and I am no expert on these matters, I think this view is straying into the Christus Victor view of the atonement.

I also think this plays into some of the reasons for this present creation. Clearly we are different from angelic race, and what special feature was God looking for when he created mankind that was so different. Some of the angels still fell, but for them there was no redemption, and yet for us there is. What makes this creation and God's dealing with it so different?

Regards
Mike

The view of the atonement I hold to is that of the substitutionary atonement.

And the sufferings of Christ was a substituted sufferings. The sufferings sinners deserved were eternal agony, the suffering of Christ was not the exact payment of that suffering, but was a substitutionary suffering.

Albert Barnes explains substitutionary atonement as:

Christ taking the substitionary place of the sinner

The sufferings of Christ being a substitute to the suffering deserved by the sinner.

The 'in the stead' of is the biblical truth captured in the laying on of hands which identified the sinner with the sin-offering, so that what happened to the substitute was reckoned as having happened to the sinner.

philologos wrote:

The sufferings of Christ being a substitute to the suffering deserved by the sinner.

This is not what Barnes is saying. It is not that Christ is a 'substitute for the suffering deserved' but that he died in the stead of the sinner. He took the sinner's place and because He was in the sinner's place He received the suffering that the sinner deserved.

To me that doesn't sound any different than what Jesse said. Please clarify yourself Philologos.

To me that doesn't sound any different than what Jesse said. Please clarify yourself Philologos.

Isaiah's prophecy declares that God gathered together 'all sin' upon Christ. [color=0000ff]“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Is 53:6 KJVS)[/color] It was because 'all the sin of the sinners' was laid upon him, not first their punishment but the sins, that Christ received God's judgment in himself. It is not sin that is punished but the sinner. Sin is expiated but the sinner is executed.

It was because 'all the sin of the sinners' was laid upon him, not first their punishment but the sins, that Christ received God's judgment in himself. It is not sin that is punished but the sinner. Sin is expiated but the sinner is executed.

This is a great quote. The bottom line for us in our day to day walk with God is that either God is satisfied with Christ's offering as a propitiation for our sins or He is not. If Christ's offering makes me worthy to come boldly to the throne room of grace then the emphasis on my own personal perfection is irrelevant. We do not come to God [i]on the basis[/i] of how righteous or holy we are but on the basis of Christ's finished work.

This is not to say that we are not expected to live holy and righteous and to infer that from what I am saying is a copout. Finney tried to achieve his own way what God also wants to achieve. The difference is that God's plan was to do it through the power of the Holy Ghost in a real and genuine way that is well past mere lip service or misunterstanding of what they themselves say or affirm. Finney's route was through what I call [u][i]Conditional Eternal Insecurity[/i][/u]. A person feet is held to the fire perpetually as the primary motivating factor in keeping them living a righteous and holy life. To add to this a whole system of legalisms were then added to make making heaven an impossibility for most people. I can say that with a clear conscience. If those here had read Finney's view of a seared conscience most would tremble and write him off. Perhaps most did not know he considered going out in the cold without a proper coat on as evidence of a seared conscience? It is sad that I have to say these things because folk can't hold fast to what is good and reject the falsehood. But we can take up the matter if we must and I am quite ready.

Thank you Robert for bringing this conversation right back to the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.

My concern is that in promoting certain of the works of Finney I have somehow led folk to think I endorse all of his materials. I have tried to walk a fine line, but invariably that has not always worked. I think he has some good works and some bad works. The finality of the doctrine is that of much legalism. Paul asked Galatia, "Having begun in the Spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh? Are you so foolish?" this is the danger we face. True Spirituality being counterfeited by dead religion that seeks to come of as more spiritual because it is more [i]strict[/i]. Strict does not equal spiritual. Consider this quote Seared Conscience Part 1 section 5, though off topic, but indicitive of what I am referring to:

46. When you can waste God's money in administering to your lusts, when you can buy tobacco, tea, coffee, and such like fashionable but pernicious articles without deep compunction and remorse, your conscience is seared with a hot iron.

47. When you can say you have no conscience on these subjects, when you can give countenance to these practices, and to the use of these articles at home or abroad, when you can use them yourselves, or furnish them for your friends, and thus countenance practices by which the Church is expending a hundred or a thousand times as much in poisons, and in the gratification of depraved artificial appetites, as it is for building up the cause of Christ and saving deathless souls from hell, when you can hear the wail of hundreds of millions of immortal beings coming upon every wind of heaven and crying out for the bread of life, and still have no conscience on the subject of the use of these pernicious articles, by which the Church is poisoned, and the heathen robbed of the everlasting gospel of the blessed God--if you have no conscience on such subjects as these, it is because your conscience is seared with a hot iron.

****

Tea and coffee are poisoning the church? I drink neither tea or coffee and have a hard time with this. The error is assuming that more money = more saved souls. We know this not to be true in our times. It is not money standing in the way of evangelism- but folk full of the Spirit and walking in His way- doing what He called them to do. I assume if Jesus drank wine then that was excessive? Why not just drink water? Etc. Etc. It leads to severe bondage and joylessness. The idea that strict = spiritual is almost as deadly as justification by sanctification.

Ron and Robert thanks very much. Cleared some 'headway' on this.

Now, I have another question for you Ron (Philologos). What would you define your theology on atonement, like the 'title' or name?

1Pe 2:24 Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

He drank the cup of the sin of the world and all that believe are healed.

Right in the middle of Christ and the Father are; "by whose stripes ye are healed"

Healed; "Made Whole" The death blows He took for us, makes us whole in Christ Jesus, that is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", who's glory? God the Father Who has birthed His precious Son in each believer by His Faith mustered in us by Himself the Word, Through the Holy Spirit.

This; Jer 25:15 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.

Or this;
Mar 14:36 And He said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto Thee; take away this cup from Me: nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt.

In Christ: Phillip

Since our punishment is eternal hell, and eternal hell is the punishment of each individual sinner, then there would need to be a single Christ, for each single sinner, who is eternally burning in hell. But we know that Christ is not burning in hell, which very simply concludes Christ did not recieve our punishment.

Isn't our "punishment" death (eternal)? Christ died physically to pay for our death eternal.

There is no need for more "Christs" Jesus was God in the flesh and was able to bear the sins of the world and take the wrath of God on the cross.

1Pe 2:24 Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Now, I have another question for you Ron (Philologos). What would you define your theology on atonement, like the 'title' or name?

Penal Substitution.

The Spirit of a man is new in salvation. The soul of a man is being renewed to the Spirit of Christ in a man . The flesh must be planted in the ground and die, unless a seed is planted in the ground it cannot produce fruit. The Spirit, done, The soul, being done, the flesh, will be done. The Spirit and soul are already seated In heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Colossians 3:1-4 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

What has been crucified with Christ? Since we yet live it is not the body of flesh which is our temple filled with the Quickening Holy Spirit. What was crucified with Christ was our old spirit, our old man, and our old soul that is being renewed to the mind of Christ which we now have by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God unto salvation.

In Christ: Phillip

What has been crucified with Christ? Since we yet live it is not the body of flesh which is our temple filled with the Quickening Holy Spirit. What was crucified with Christ was our old spirit, our old man, and our old soul that is being renewed to the mind of Christ which we now have by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God unto salvation.

This is the way I See Christ in the believer and the believer in Christ:

CHRIST/\\the believer in Christ/\\CHRIST IN THE BELIEVER/\\CHRIST

If I am crucified with Him, it was Him on the Cross in me and me on the Cross in Him. We were on the Cross together as One.

Rom 6:10 For in that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.

If He died to sin once, then I in Him died to sin once also. If He lives unto God, then I in Him liveth to God also.

This is the one time sanctification made of God in Jesus Christ for us. This is also the one time justification made of God in Christ Jesus for us.

He has also become our wisdom and righteousness. In other words it is no longer I who am righteous but Him who is in me. I am no longer wise but He that is in me is wise.

In this Reciprocal Indwelling of Christ and the believer, 1.I am sanctified, 2.I am being sanctified and 3.I will be sanctified. 1,Spirit, 2.Soul, 3.Body "If we have not the Spirit of Christ we are none of His" 1.The Holy Spirit wielding the double edged sword dividing asunder the soul and spirit, making the New Spirit Creature born again of the Spirit of Christ, which is now me. 2. The Holy Spirit in me now sanctified forever is sanctifying the soul, (MIND)He is teaching the mind this Christ and not speaking of Himself, but whatever Christ has said. 3. The Body is sanctified by the quickening of the Holy Spirit by the Spirit of Christ and will be sanctified on resurrection morning or in the twinkling of an eye.

!. Spirit, Sanctified complete, 2. Soul sanctified and being sanctified forever, 3. Body is sanctified, being readied for planting, will be sanctified complete, New body like His.

Spirit, Soul, Body. 1 Corinthians 1:28-31 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

In Christ: Phillip

philologos wrote:
It was because 'all the sin of the sinners' was laid upon him, not first their punishment but the sins, that Christ received God's judgment in himself. It is not sin that is punished but the sinner. Sin is expiated but the sinner is executed.

Aren't the sinners already dead, this death was the consequence of sin? [color=990000]Gen 2v17 ...for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die. (YLT)[/color]
And then don't they have to die again, so what death is this? [color=990000]Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.... (KJV)[/color]

So how do all these deaths fit together, and again, how was my dead spirit raised to newness of life; what made that possible? It can't have just been the forgiveness of my sins, because that was available in the old covenant.

I must remember that we are talking at a level that is foreign to normal way of thinking. When I walk down the street or go to the mall, I see people walking around and I think of them as alive. But the scripture tells me assuredly that they are dead: [color=990000]Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.[/color] So the cross has to deal with dead men, not living ones. Though it also has to deal with dead men that will physically die later.

So my next question is even more dangerous. When did Christ die? If the death that Adam experienced was a separation from God, as we believe: [color=990000]Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know (in the sense of united with) thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.[/color] Then it would appear that, that death occured when Christ said, [color=990000]Mat 27:46 ...My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?[/color] What exactly was going on, on the cross. This makes sense of the cry it is [color=990000]Joh 19:30 he said, It is finished,[/color] because Christ had [color=990000]Heb 2:9 tasted death for every man.[/color] If so, what of His physical death when he gave up the Spirit into His Fathers hands. Had the union been restored, or was it only restored at the resurrection?

Among all that is going on, what is happening that deals with my dead state, and brings newness of life? Perhaps someone would be prepared to offer a timeline of the spiritual events on the cross and through to the resurrection, because so much seems to be dependent on the resurrection, not just the cross. I would appreciate any insight anyone has to these questions.

Whatever it is, it begins to make sense of Paul's comments about believers only falling asleep. While the end of the life of a sinner and a saint appear different, the sinner dies a physical death, and their body will not be resurrected (or if it is, it will be old rotting and stinking), while the saint will be raised into a new and incorruptible body. The saint sleeps ready to have the life in them awakened, while the sinner's body finally dies, later to be cast into the lake of fire!

As an encouragement to all that post here, I would like to include a Carol Jerman hymn is a great blessing and that speaks so much on this topic:

Jesus, Thy cross is sweet to me,
This blessed place of rest;
Abiding here brings liberty
From all that once distressed;
All my condition, so hopeless and stubborn,
All the despair that ensured;
Jesus, my Lord, I die in Thee,
In thee, I rise renewed.

Lord, my disease was unto death
And could not be improved,
So thou hast given They death to me
With all its sting removed.
Oh, what release, so long longed for!
My soul mounts up on wings!
Here, where all earthly hopes do cease.
The new creation springs.

Sentence of death I bore within,
And bear continually;
Glorious hope! No ground for sin
Shall remain in me.
Dust returns again to dust
And can appear no more;
Love returns again to love
Ever to endure.

Jesus, Thy cross is given to me,
A gift unspeakably great;
Nothing but this could remedy
My accursed state.
Now from the curse Thou has provided
This way of escape alone;
This is the way that all may go,
This is too hard for none.

Mike

Paul uses the Perfect Tense signifying not the single event but a process that began in the past and continues into the present; hence it can be translated 'I have been and still am crucified with Christ'. Paul never uses the Perfect Tense when speaking of the Old Man but always the Aorist.

So our crucifixion in Christ is not yet a completed action? This is quite interesting. Perhaps this has some bearing on our conversations on the flesh?

It is an event with an ongoing consequence. "I was shot and I have been and still am wounded." The 'I was shot' would use the Aorist while the 'still am wounded' would use the Perfect.

This is not the flesh that Paul is referring to but 'I'. It is the equivalent of taking up 'my' cross daily. Christ's cross was once for all, mine is daily. His was for sin, mine is part of God's ongoing discipling of my life.

This is not the flesh that Paul is referring to but 'I'. It is the equivalent of taking up 'my' cross daily. Christ's cross was once for all, mine is daily. His was for sin, mine is part of God's ongoing discipling of my life.

OK. That makes sense. So it is yet the need for us to surrender daily (even though we are free from Sin) to His will in place of our own.

This is going to be a long post...

Aren't the sinners already dead, this death was the consequence of sin? Gen 2v17 ...for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die. (YLT)
And then don't they have to die again, so what death is this? Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.... (KJV)[

So how do all these deaths fit together, and again, how was my dead spirit raised to newness of life; what made that possible? It can't have just been the forgiveness of my sins, because that was available in the old covenant.

There is plainly more than one death. The 'dying thou dost die' of Young's is a Hebrew idiom of concentration and focus. This is death with a capital D. Paul uses a definite article in Rom 5:12ff .."The Death". Almost a thousand years later Adam died a 'second death'; this was plainly physical, so what kind of death was the first? He was 'dead to God'. Perhaps the language of the prodigals father is instructive; [color=0000ff]“For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” (Luke 15:24 KJVS)[/color] The word used here is a noun, nekros, it might be translated 'corpse'. It is interesting that this is the view of things from the father's perspective. The prodigal may not have felt either 'dead' or 'lost' but as far as the father was concerned he was both.

There is a NT reference which comes to mind which again shows that there is more than one kind of death;[color=0000ff]“Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us,” (2Cor 1:9-10 NKJV))[/color]'so great a death' is not physical death but another 'death' from which Paul had already been 'delivered'.

Paul says that 'The Death' spread to all men. The word spread might be literally translated 'come through to'. The image here is not necessarily the working of heredity but of contagion. 'Transmission' is a part of 'original sin' that has different Bible students have understood in different ways. I do not accept the crude Roman Catholic version of transmission through the male line.

Paul also says... [color=0000ff]“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1Cor 15:20-22 NKJV)[/color] This doesn't actually say that 'all in Adam are dead' but that 'all in Adam do die'. (3rd Person Present Active Indicative Plural) It is inevitable that 'all in Adam' die, in fact, there may be a case for using the present continuous and saying 'all in Adam are dying'. The essential thing to understand is what it means to be 'in Adam'. I can think of no other way of understanding that phrase than by comparison with its contrast 'in Christ'. What does it mean to be 'in Christ'? Surely it is the fulfillment of the promise...[color=0000ff]“At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.” (John 14:20 NKJV)[/color] The day referenced here is the Day of Pentecost as the context makes clear; John 14:16-20 I know this will raise some comments but I see no other way of becoming 'in Christ' that by the coming of the Spirit which creates the relationship referred to in this verse... "you in Me, and I in you".

So where does that leave us with a definition of being 'in Adam'? As I see it, it refers to our condition by natural, first, birth in contrast with the condition created by our second birth. Christ is the head of the body and the body is his church. Adam too was the head of a body and that body is humanity 'in Adam'. The church under its head is a 'new man'; the human race under its head is the 'old man'.

Physical death did not only affect Adam's progeny; it affected the whole creation. Physical death is a consequence of Adam's rebellion. [color=0000ff]“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” (Rom 8:20-23 NKJV)[/color] My body is still part of the earthly creation and it groans... (some days more than others as I get older! ;-))

The earth was 'cursed' for Adam's sake. What can this mean?“[color=0000ff]And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;” (Gen 3:17 KJVS)[/color]I have reverted to the old KJV here to pick up the fact that God held Adam, the man, uniquely responsible for what had happened. None of this is addresses to Eve, nor to them jointly. The effect of this 'curse' was still in the conscious mind of Noah's father; Gen 5:29 I am sure it continues to the present day. Is this where the physical death comes in?

So men are 'dead' and 'going to die' and yet there is another 'death' in prospect; [color=0000ff]“The soul who sins shall die.” (Ezek 18:20 NKJV)[/color]

So my next question is even more dangerous. When did Christ die? If the death that Adam experienced was a separation from God, as we believe: Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know (in the sense of united with) thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Then it would appear that, that death occured when Christ said, Mat 27:46 ...My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? What exactly was going on, on the cross. This makes sense of the cry it is Joh 19:30 he said, It is finished, because Christ had Heb 2:9 tasted death for every man. If so, what of His physical death when he gave up the Spirit into His Fathers hands. Had the union been restored, or was it only restored at the resurrection?

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),”
(Gal 3:13 NKJV)[/color]The Galatian reference says he 'was made/became' a curse.

Among all that is going on, what is happening that deals with my dead state, and brings newness of life? Perhaps someone would be prepared to offer a timeline of the spiritual events on the cross and through to the resurrection, because so much seems to be dependent on the resurrection, not just the cross. I would appreciate any insight anyone has to these questions.

and thanks for the reminder of Carol Jermain's lovely hymn.

So it is yet the need for us to surrender daily (even though we are free from Sin) to His will in place of our own.

I generally try to go slowly

Part of the answer to this lies in where you think Christ spent the time between the cross and the empty tomb. He called his death a baptism and all baptism is into death. Baptism effects a union and we need to ask 'into what was Christ baptised?' or 'with what was he united in that baptism?'

To me, the explanation goes to the very edges of what has been revealed and I am not prepared to go further.

Thank you for contributing your thoughts. I think we are in a similar place to the discussion on the Trinity. We so easily get caught up in discussing the minutiae of one part of what was happening on the cross, that we miss the 'so much more'. In this case the 'so much more' of what Christ did for us and that we can be so thankful for. Sin, sins, a curse, death or deaths, and probably a lot more all dealt with. This was truly the pivotal point in history. :-o

Regards
Mike

One of the strongest planks in the belief in the penal substitutionary 'theory' of the atonement comes from Romans 3. [color=0000ff]“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26 NKJV)[/color]In this passage Paul is stating that God 'passed over the sins that were previously committed'. The implication is very clear. How could it be just for God to have 'declared men righteous' when he has just brought in a charge that the whole world is guilty before God?

How can God be, at one and the same time, the one who declares the ungodly to be righteous and a righteous God. If man is not righteous how can God declare him to be righteous and still be credible as a just God? The answer given by Paul, in the wisdom given of God, is that God has been propitiated. Propitiation is to make peace through a payment or gesture on the part of the offender. A state of hostility existed between two parties and offending party appeases the offended party with a propitiatory gift.

This is the biblical picture of atonement. The Hebrew word is 'kaphar' and the first three uses of it are very instructive. [color=0000ff]Gen. 6:14 (DRBY) Make thyself an ark of gopher wood: [with] cells shalt thou make the ark; and [u]pitch[/u] it inside and outside with pitch.

Gen. 32:20 (DRBY) And, moreover, ye shall say, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will [u]propitiate[/u] him with the gift that goes before me, and afterwards I will see his face: perhaps he will accept me.

Ex. 29:33 (DRBY) They shall eat the things with which the [u]atonement[/u] was made, to consecrate [and] to hallow them; but a stranger shall not eat [of them], for they are holy. [/color] 'kaphar' at root means 'to cover' and it is used constantly in the scriptures with the image of 'the cause of the offence' ie the sin being hidden from the eyes of the offended party so that peace can be effected. Perhaps the most graphic illustration is in the story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob had sinned against Esau and Esau was angry to the point of murder. After the passage of many years they are to meet and Jacob determines to 'appease' his brother's anger by means of a costly gift. The KJV uses the word 'appease'. A propitiation is a price paid to remove the cause of the offence so that reconciliation can be effected. Tozer used to say that it was a true instinct that told men to pay a price to appease anger. It is the underlying truth behind all blood sacrifice. Tozer would go on to say that we need the scriptures to tune that instinct by revelation so that we understand we can never provide a gift sufficient to turn away God's anger.

The Jacob/Esau incident is very helpful. I will propitiate [u]him[/u] with a gift. Jacob's behaviour was a personal affront to Esau and it was Esau who needed to be appeased. Jacob 'set forth' a gift as a 'propitiation'. In almost all Israel's sacrifices it was a life that was necessary as the price of propitiation. All those innocent animal victims pointed to the great cost of appeasing the anger of God. Modern, liberal, theologians do not like this language. They do not like the idea that God is angry with the offender. They prefer to think of the offender as sick and in need of a physician. But the concept of God being angry with the sinner is perfectly biblical and not to be discounted.

The amazing switch in Paul's revelation is that the offended party has paid the price of propitiation, rather than the offending party. It is God himself who has 'presented' or 'set forth' the propitiating price, and the price was the life of his Son. This is breathtaking. We usually say that Christ 'paid the price' but this verse says that God 'paid the price' and that the price that he paid was the death of his Son.[color=0000ff]“And in that day thou shalt say, Jehovah, I will praise thee; for though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou hast comforted me.” (Is 12:1 DRBY)[/color]

So how about the 'substitutionary' part of the description?

The biblical concept of 'substitution' is well founded.[color=0000ff]“And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, behind was a ram caught in the thicket by its horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt-offering [b]instead[/b] of his son.” (Gen 22:13 DRBY)[/color] These passages are the building blocks of language and concepts which God uses later to express the truth of the atonement. An earlier use of this same word [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=08478&page=1&flag_full=1]tachath[/url] is found in the account of Seth's birth.[color=0000ff]“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me [b]instead[/b] of Abel, whom Cain killed.”” (Gen 4:25 NKJV)[/color] There can be little doubt that the sense of these verses is that one thing was replaced by another. This is substitution.

Was Christ then provided as a 'gift for the sinner' or as a 'replacement' for the sinner. There is little doubt I would have thought that the ram was not only 'on behalf of' Isaac but was 'instead of him'. Not only representative but also substitutionary.

As far as I understand it, Finneyism regards Christ as man's representative but not as his substitute. He did not, according to this theory, take man's place but he did carry man's sins. I do not think that this does justice to the language of the scripture.

The substitutionary nature of the ram for Isaac is called a 'burnt offering'. The 'burnt offerings' were not primarily 'sin offerings' but 'approach offerings'. They typified the wholeheartedness of the worshipper as he gave himself to God in the symbol of a consumed sacrifice. When the law came in, sin was quantifiable, and the sin-offering and 'trespass offering' were instituted and the pattern of 'laying on hands' was incorporated into this ritual. If you cut and paste these references into a computer Bible programme it will show you just what a major part of the ceremonies this was. (Lev 1:4; 3:2,8,13; 4:4,15,24,29,33; 8:14,18,22; 24:14) The question is what does it signify? What does 'the laying on of hands' (Heb 6:2) really signify. There are many parts to the answer to this question but one part is certainly 'identification'. That is to say the 'sacrificial victim' will now 'stand in' for the worshipper. The sacrificial animal will be 'my lamb' etc [color=0000ff]“...“he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf” (Lev 1:4 NKJV)[/color] The animal was accepted as the worshippers substitute. Its death counted as his death.

There is a remarkable scripture in Isaiah 53 which is so often read superficially [color=0000ff]\t“But He was wounded for our transgressions,
\tHe was bruised for our iniquities;
\tThe chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
\tAnd by His stripes we are healed.
\tAll we like sheep have gone astray;
\tWe have turned, every one, to his own way;
\tAnd the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” (Is 53:5-6 NKJV))[/color] It would be hard to come to any other conclusion other than 'substitutionary atonement' from these verses. According to these verses Christ was carrying 'our transgression' and 'our iniquities'. He took the punishment that was due to me. This passage has another remarkable verse a little further on[color=0000ff]“Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath subjected [him] to suffering. When [b]thou[/b] shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see a seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.”
(Is 53:10 DRBY)[/color] One of the things that makes this verse even more remarkable is the way that the personal pronoun you (literally 'thou') is introduced into the prophecy. If you read this passage you will see how forcible the impact is that, having referred to 'our' throughout the passage, Isaiah suddenly addresses the reader and says 'thou'. He tells us that it is when 'I' (thou) personally make Christ's soul a sin offering that changes are effected. It is then, and not until then, that God's seed becomes visible and the will of Jehovah is effected. This is a stunning revelation.

In Levitical times the way to make the offering 'thy' offering was to 'lay' the hand upon his head. In other words to identify myself with this offering so that it becomes my substitute and what happens to it is counted as though it had happened to me. I have to choose for him to be my representative and substitute and having chosen the purposes of God are released. (This is somewhat different to the sinner's prayer, isn't it?) The worshipper says 'Lord, this instead of me'. If 'this sacrifice' is accepted it is reckoned that I have been accepted. This is subsitutionary atonement.

Philologos wrote

This is subsitutionary atonement.

I have interlaced the Isa 53 passage with the similar passage in Peter below. Any good healing evangelist will claim part of this for himself, but my reading it is primarily about sin and righteousness, not physical healing. I find it interesting that the first phrases deal with sins, but then Isaiah talks about chastisement of peace, whereas Peter talks about being dead to sins (reminiscent of Rom 6v2) and alive to righteousness, and both conclude by 'by his stripes we are healed'. I am not sure I see healing as part of dealing with sins, they need forgiveness, so were the stripes to heal me from the Sin and my dead spirit. Just some musings to keep us going.

Isaiah 53:5-6/1 Peter 2:24-25
(Isa) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities:
(Pet) Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree
(Isa) the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
(Pet) that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (aorist)
(Isa) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
(Pet) For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
(Isa) and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I also have a question as to what happened to the Sin? The death is easy to trace through and we see its ultimate end in Rev 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." One reference I can find is Heb 9:26 "....hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Picking up an older question of yours,

Part of the answer to this lies in where you think Christ spent the time between the cross and the empty tomb.

Mike

But I am left with several outstanding problems. The old heart, the Sin, the curse, the old man, and physical death. How were these dealt with on the cross? If I only needed to have the penalty for my sins paid to bring me back into relationship with God, then this would suffice, but if I have a dead spirit and that needs to be dealt with along with all these other things, then how is this achieved? I wonder if what we call the atonement, the paying the price for sins, is still too narrow a definition, and that there is more in the the atonement than that (btw from what I can see atonement as an English word was made up by Tyndale as he thought reconciliation was too weak).

This thread will grow wider and wider but my own conviction is that that it is because of 'Original Sin' (all these threads are really connected) that Christ was baptised on the cross. I, and many evangelicals, distinguish between Sin the dynamic and sins the deeds or as many older evangelicals might have said, "Sin, the root and sins, the fruit. The fruit/deeds are our individual responsibility and for God to be just in declaring us 'righteous' the penalty (penal) for all those deeds had to be paid in Christ's taking the punishiment (penal) due to us because of those sins. My last two long posts have been dealing with the 'deeds' because this is the Atonement Views thread, but the other discussion as to how Sin (and The old heart, the Sin, the curse, the old man, and physical death.) would really belong under the Original Sin thread. Unless you think it makes more sense to rehearse them here...?

Philologos wrote

I was answering an earlier question as to what my own view of the Atonement was and which I said, rather abruptly, was Penal Substitution.

Philologos wrote

My last two long posts have been dealing with the 'deeds' because this is the Atonement Views thread

Philologos wrote

but the other discussion as to how Sin (...) would really belong under the Original Sin thread. Unless you think it makes more sense to rehearse them here...?

I probably ought to start a thread on the "The remedial effects of Christ's suffering, death, resurrection and ascension.", but I think that that might be a too large for one thread and I need to do some more study before launching it. The New Testament seems clear, that it is not just His death that is important (though very important) but also His resurrection. One observation I have made, was putting these verses together:

Matthew 27:50-51 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Mike

I was trying to clarify whether our definition of atonement is limited to "paying the price of sins", or more. The reason it is important is that if we limit our understanding to what was happening on the cross to "paying the price of sins", then we all too easily miss out on what else is necessary eg dealing with original sin. Unless, once the price of sins was paid, the rest followed as a natural consequence; observations?

I want to add a comment to 'paying the price of sins'. This is language that I have used but so far I have only used it in the image of 'penal substitution' ie the punishment due to the sinner for his breaking of God's law. Another part of the image is of the freed slave. This is where we get our language of 'redemption' from. A price was paid to effect a change of ownership. The image of the slave brings out a different part of the whole truth, namely that we have become slaves. This is linked into the imagery of the 'kinsman redeemer' of the OT.

[color=0000ff]“‘And the land is not sold — to extinction, for the land [is] Mine, for sojourners and settlers [are] ye with Me; and in all the land of your possession a redemption ye do give to the land. ‘When thy brother becometh poor, and hath sold his possession, then hath his [b]redeemer[/b] who is near unto him come, and he hath [b]redeemed[/b] the sold thing of his brother; and when a man hath no [b]redeemer[/b], and his own hand hath attained, and he hath found as sufficient [for] its redemption, then he hath reckoned the years of its sale, and hath given back that which is over to the man to whom he sold [it], and he hath returned to his possession.” (Lev 25:23-27 YNG)[/color]This is the language of the kinsman-redeemer or 'goel'. If the land had been 'sold' it could be repurchased but only by a near member of the family. With all the imagery of salvation we need to remind ourselves that the reality is always greater than the illustration and that all illustrations fail if you push them too hard. Christ will return as a thief in the night. That does not mean that he will return at night nor that his action is illegal; it simply means 'unexpectedly'. I say that because if you push this image to its limits it produces the 'ransom to the devil' error of medieval Catholicism. The point is simply that a 'price is paid'. This is not the 'penalty of sin' price which has been paid, although it took place in the same 'transaction' of Calvary.

I am making this point simply to emphasize that Penal Substitution has to do with a substitute being punished on our behalf and not on the other image of redeemed land or persons. We should combine these images rather than set them in contrast.

The 'ransom shekel' is another part of the rich tapestry of truth. [color=0000ff]““When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them. This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the LORD.” (Ex 30:12-13 NKJV)[/color]Technically these 'first born sons' were under a death penalty and they have to redeem themselves back from God.

The point I am making here is that the 'price paid' was not the picture of the penalty or penal substitution but of the redemption and change of ownership. Christ's death on the cross fulfilled all these types and figures in the one sacrifice.

Just some quick thoughts.

Philologos wrote

The image of the slave brings out a different part of the whole truth, namely that we have become slaves.

The next verse of your Leviticus quotation prompted me:

Leviticus 25:28 But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubile: and in the jubile it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession.

Joel 2:25 And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.

Blessings
Mike

I find the idea of 'ransom to the devil' a most obnoxious idea.

A few problems with the punishment view is that it leads to:

He follows through to declare that [color=0000ff]“if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1John 2:1-2 KJVS)[/color] The scriptures set forth our Glorified Jesus in two main aspects, as High Priest and Legal Representative. To drop either of these truths is to leave us impoverished. The High Priest offers forgiveness of the basis of sacrifice, the Legal Representative guarantees justification on the basis of God's just demands having being perfectly met in Christ.

I doubt that it was ever more gloriously set forth than in Charles Wesley's hymn;1 'TIS finished! The Messias dies,
Cut off for sins, but not his own:
Accomplished is the sacrifice,
The great redeeming work is done.

2 'Tis finished! all the debt is paid;
Justice divine is satisfied;
The grand and full atonement made;
God for a guilty world hath died.

3 The veil is rent in Christ alone;
The living way to heaven is seen;
The middle wall is broken down,
And all mankind may enter in.

4 The types and figures are fulfilled;
Exacted is the legal pain;
The precious promises are sealed;
The spotless Lamb of God is slain.

5 The reign of sin and death is o'er,
And all may live from sin set free;
Satan hath lost his mortal power;
'Tis swallowed up in victory.

6 Saved from the legal curse I am,
My Saviour hangs on yonder tree:
See there the meek, expiring Lamb!
'Tis finished! he expires for me.

7 Accepted in the Well-beloved,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
I see the bar to heaven removed;
And all thy merits, Lord, are mine.

8 Death, hell, and sin are now subdued;
All grace is now to sinners given;
And lo, I plead the atoning blood,
And in thy right I claim thy heaven!

Lazarus1719 wrote:
[b]IT LEADS TO THE TEMPORAL HELL VIEW [/b]

If someone believes that Christ recieved the exact and literal penalty of the law, then it's inconsistent to believe in eternal hell. Christ died once. If he recieved the exact and literal penalty of the law, then sinners only deserve to die once. If the temporal suffering and one time death of Christ was the exact and literal penalty of the law, then sinners only deserve temporal suffering and one time death.

There is a great deal being said here that deserves further exposition. Due to the complexity of the post by Lazarus1719, this single paragraph needs to be looked at more closely, else we are in danger of losing ourselves in that complexity.

Because this subject is normally treated in a full exposition in a book devoted to the exploration of the topic, I feel that this forum is the wrong place for sweeping statements that must be then proved at length, losing the normal reader (me) in massive discussions of what seem to be be overwhelming generalizations.

So, for this one establishing paragraph, I'd like to take it line by line.

If someone believes that Christ recieved the exact and literal penalty of the law, then it's inconsistent to believe in eternal hell.

The exact and literal penalty of not keeping the Mosaic law is to be cursed. Since Christ kept the law in absolute perfection, he had to be cursed another way. This was accomplished by the crucifiction, where Jesus was cursed for being hung on a wooden cross. KJV Deut. 21:23

Mankind, although being spiritually, and eventually physically dead, has been loved greatly by the Lord. God has gone out of His way to offer us His friendship through our faith and trust in Him. If God gives us, for love of us, a chance at eternal life, and then we throw it back in His face, I can see, in justice, that God has a right to give us an eternal death. If there were no second life available, there would be no need for a second death.

If that death is hell, as in fire and brimstone for eternity, when eternal life is relatively easy to obtain, and because God suffered greatly to arrange it for us, I can understand it. He's God, I'm not. I don't have to like it, and frankly, I don't. But I'm not in charge of the Universe, and I acknowledge the right of the One who is in charge to do whatever He wants, within His own law, and His tendency to mercy and compassion.

Christ died once. If he recieved the exact and literal penalty of the law, then sinners only deserve to die once.

Jesus died to redeem us from the sin of Adam, not to redeem us from the Law. The Law was given that sin might become evident in all it's hideousness. Jesus was given by God that by grace, through faith in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, those who believed might be washed clean of all sin through Jesus's blood sacrifice of Himself that established a New Covenant, first fulfilling the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Law, and then wiping it out for those that would choose to walk in the New Covenant.

Technically, one could say that both Adam and Jesus died twice, spiritually, then physically. Adam died spiritually upon eating the forbidden fruit, and began to die in the body at the same moment. The fact that it took nearly a thousand years for Adam's body to finish dying is irrelevant. Adam died only once, but immediately in the spirit, and then later in the body.

Acting as our 'kinsman redeemer', being at one with all mankind in his lineage through Mary, Christ had the same sin nature that Adam received upon eating the fruit of the the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Only His Divine Spirit through the Most High enabled Him to live the Law perfectly although living as a man, and being tempted of all things just as any man would be.

Christ also died in the same manner as Adam, though rather more quickly, dying spiritually at about noon, and physically at about three in the afternoon. When Jesus cried out to God, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' KJV Matt. 27:46, Jesus was protesting the pain of the moment when God turned away from Him, just as God turned away from Adam, though Jesus deserved it not. When Jesus gave up the ghost, it was the finishing of His death, just like Adam, and in the same order.

The Old Covenant of the Mosaic Law was conditional. Before it lay other Covenants, probably equally conditional, such as the Adamic Covenant, where sacrifice in some manner showed faith and trust in God, and brought man back into God's favor. Then there was the Noahide Covenant, and the Abrahamic Covenant, all showing God tring to find a way to reconcile man to Himself.

Thus we have the New Covenant in Christ. Breaking the the command of God not to eat the forbidden fruit brought a curse on Adam, and the entire world, eventually leading to the death of man, since all the Adamic race is required to die for having the sin nature. Not believing in Christ leaves us to the Law, which no one can keep perfectly, and hence to death through the curse on Adam.

We are not the cause of our situation. Adam was. If God chooses to give us chance after chance, and we turn from Him, He has the right, in justice, to do as He pleases with us. I am grateful that He loves us so much, that He attempts to give us a way to get to Him without breaking His own laws. If we are so untaught as to merely know Him by His creation, so tortured and tormented in life as to reject His mercy, I have no doubt He takes that into account. But a second death, no matter the manner of it, if God has offered a second life, seems very just, knowing that even in His wrath, God will be as merciful as He can be and not break His own laws.

If the temporal suffering and one time death of Christ was the exact and literal penalty of the law, then sinners only deserve temporal suffering and one time death.

Again, the penalty of the law is to be cursed. All mankind was already dead spiritually, and dying physically before the Law was given.

There is no point in a Law that conditionally blesses man for obedience if it did not carry eternal life with it. Not only were those that kept the law to be blessed on earth, but they were to receive everlasting life. But if they sinned, they would be blotted out of God's Book.

KJV Ex.32:33 33. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of my book.

KJV Deut 29:21 20. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and His jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven.

If there was to be but one death for any man, why then did God speak of being blotted out of the 'Book of life'? Under the Law there was that 'Book of Life', and if man kept the law, he would not be blotted out of it. This speaks to an eternal life. And if a possibility of an eternal life, then a possibility of an eternal death for not keeping the law.

Yet it was by faith that Abraham was saved, under the Noahide Covenant, and so would be others saved by faith in God, such as King David, despite the breaking of the Mosaic Covenant.

And for those that believe in Jesus, they are granted freedom, through the action of the Holy Spirit, not only from the curse of the Law, but from the curse of our sin nature inherited from Adam, in that Jesus died to purchase it all for us. The Holy Spirit works on us to help us slowly turn from our sin nature, dying to the lusts of the flesh, mind and soul. But only in faith, through grace, do we obtain Jesus' righteousness, and avoid the second death.

KJV Rev.2:10b 'be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.'

In God's grace, He gives us the chance to avoid the second death through faith. He gave it to Enoch, to Noah, to Job, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Elijah, and innumerable others, before the Law, and during it.

Deserving the 'second death' is a matter of God's justice, tempered by grace, through faith.

As for everlasting life or death, God has the right. He made us. He can unmake us. He can punish us for taking hold of a Covenant, then breaking it. But because of His love for us, He has gone out of His way to give us life through Jesus, if we will just take it, and strive to walk in Jesus' footsteps.

We will always fail. We are human, not Divine. God keeps His own Laws, but if He can find a loophole in His laws, or a way around them, such as the 'Kinsman Redeemer' concept, He will use it for love of us.

KJV Romans 9:15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

As for the rest of the post of Lazarus1719, there is little point in disputing it if the foundational statement has been rebutted, however faultily. Perhaps I take the Bible too literally, or too simplistically. If so, I take the promises of God too literally, and too simplistically as well. Consequently, in Jesus' righteousness, by my faith in Him, I'll take my stand.

Blessings,