What I believe about the Atonement

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok and so here is the root of my confusion with your view. Sometimes you talk about debt, sometimes you talk about the law, sometimes you talk about death, sometimes you refer to it as a penalty. It seems as though you change which part of that (I believe it is all of the above) you focus on based on which is more advantageous to your argument at the time. I think this is why I (and others) have a hard time understanding what you actually believe and why, in my opinion, you seem all over the place with your theology.
Sorry. I come from a Penal Substitution Theory tradition so it is easy for me to slip into that language without meaning the same thing.

I believe "sin debt" in terms of Penal Substitution Theory is incorrect. When I speak if debts what I mean is our transgressions against God but not in the sense it literally creates a debt that must be paid. I believe these are sins that can be forgiven (like "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors").

That is why I have been trying to stay away from terms like "penalty" and "debt", but you keep pulling in that direction. Rather than looking at it as a "debt" we can speak of it as "wages". Christ experienced the wages of sin on behalf of the human family.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I believe "sin debt" in terms of Penal Substitution Theory is incorrect. When I speak if debts what I mean is our transgressions against God but not in the sense it literally creates a debt that must be paid. I believe these are sins that can be forgiven (like "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors").
Let's talk about forgiving the debt then. If I forgive your debt on a loan does that make the debt go away? No. Someone paid that debt. In that case, it would be the lender. In the same way, our sins do not just go away because the debt is forgiven, the cost was paid for by the Savior. Our sins, our debt, was laid on him and he paid it.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is why I have been trying to stay away from terms like "penalty" and "debt", but you keep pulling in that direction. Rather than looking at it as a "debt" we can speak of it as "wages". Christ experienced the wages of sin on behalf of the human family.
For the record, you actually have to look at it as a debt in order to be biblical since Scripture actually calls it a debt.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let's talk about forgiving the debt then. If I forgive your debt on a loan does that make the debt go away? No. Someone paid that debt. In that case, it would be the lender. In the same way, our sins do not just go away because the debt is forgiven, the cost was paid for by the Savior. Our sins, our debt, was laid on him and he paid it.
I believe that we have to be baptized into Christ's death (we have to die to sin) and be made alive in Christ. There is no condemnation in Christ.

To use your example: Saul owes a debt. Saul dies. Paul is born. Paul does not owe Saul's debt.

Even that is just an illustration. Fact is you make assumptions about the kind of debt we are speaking of. If you punch me I do not have to punch someone in order to forgive you.

Man does not create an obligation in God that He must satisfy in order to forgive.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
For the record, you actually have to look at it as a debt in order to be biblical since Scripture actually calls it a debt.
A debt in the context of the law but not a "sin debt" that God must satisfy before He can forgive man.

God is not that weak and man is not that strong.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you punch me I do not have to punch someone in order to forgive you.
Strawman. I never argued such. I merely said Scripture specifically talks about a debt.

Man does not create an obligation in God that He must satisfy in order to forgive.
Then Christ had no reason to die.

A debt in the context of the law but not a "sin debt" that God must satisfy before He can forgive man.
You can't have it both ways John.

God is not that weak and man is not that strong.
What in the world are you talking about?
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@David Taylor,

If it is simply my view you want to understand then I will simply say that I hold the "classic view" of the Atonement (Ransom Theory). Not that God paid a ransom to Satan or to God (both have been suggested) but that Christ ransomed us and freed us from the law of sin and death.

I know you studied this in seminary (as your degree is in theology... I take a M. A. T. S.?). That is my position (the Classic view) . We do not need to dance around our disagreements because we both know where we stand on the issue.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then Christ had no reason to die.
Serious?

You read my view and all you can come up with is "then Christ had no reason to die"???

The truth is that you do not understand why Christ had to die except under Penal Substitution Theory. And that is sad for a seminary graduate (you do not have to agree with my view, but you should at least have a basic knowledge of the reason Christ had to die under opposing theories).

Let me ask you this, David - out of all the degrees why did you choose to study theology if you are so ambivalent about the science? Perhaps a better choice would have been a concentration on the ministry.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@David Taylor,

If it is simply my view you want to understand then I will simply say that I hold the "classic view" of the Atonement (Ransom Theory). Not that God paid a ransom to Satan or to God (both have been suggested) but that Christ ransomed us and freed us from the law of sin and death.

I know you studied this in seminary (as your degree is in theology... I take a M. A. T. S.?). That is my position (the Classic view) . We do not need to dance around our disagreements because we both know where we stand on the issue.
Ransom Theory IS the theory that holds God paid ransom to Satan and then Satan was obliged to release us from bondage. So you can't say you hold that, then say it doesn't mean ransom to Satan. That's the very core of Ransom Theory.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ransom Theory IS the theory that holds God paid ransom to Satan and then Satan was obliged to release us from bondage. So you can't say you hold that, then say it doesn't mean ransom to Satan. That's the very core of Ransom Theory.
No. Origen's writing put it in the context of God paying a random to Satan. Scholars have questioned that he meant that literal (most kean to his use to represent the powers of sin). Regardless by the middle ages it was taken to mean this.

Leon Morris wrote an interesting article (he holds your Theory). He notes that until Anselm there was not a formulated theory.

My point is that Ransom Theory does not mean God paying Satan. Random theory (which you should know given your education) held that Christ paid a random for us (some believed to Satan, some to God, some to the "principles of sin and death, and some to no one). I believe it a random paid. This is the Classic view. It is what N. T. Wright refers to as the" Christus Victor motif".

You should have done more than the minimum in seminary. That was an opportunity for you to learn and engage the professors.
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My point is that Ransom Theory does not mean God paying Satan. Random theory (which you should know given your education) held that Christ paid a random for us (some believed to Satan, some to God, some to the "principles of sin and death, and some to no one). I believe it a random paid.
This is what I mean when I say you are all over the place in your theology. You say you hold to Ransom Theory (which is absolutely a theory of paying ransom to Satan), but you don't. What ransom is Christ paying? Where is that ransom due to? What is the purpose?

And if you look at the verses in the NT that actually use the word ransom, Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:6, two out of those three the word for, as in for many, means in place of. In other words, we didn't have to pay our ransom, which means to purchase our release, because Christ paid it in our place. He was the substitute. In place of. What were we having to pay our release from? The penalty of sin, the wages of sin, eternal death.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2019
7,784
3,150
113
76
Tennessee
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Steve Owen 's criticism was that the OP was too much Scripture and not enough commentary (not enough explanation).

I only read yours and the first responses. I doubt I will get involved as what I see is just arguing over semantics, making both parties right about the atonement. But there was one question I would have for them. I'm curious if I'll get an answer.

If you believe what you wrote, quoting Scriptures or not, what's not to agree with? I agree with all of it, but there was one part I wonder if they will agree with.

You said: He made our sins His own and freed us from the bondage of sin and death that has held mankind in slavery by defeating the powers of evil.

Or if they will think it a lie to not call themselves a "sinner." How many of them will agree that Jesus took away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. Or if they will instead say they are sinners and only have imputed righteousness, not actual righteousness, and that the blood of Jesus merely covers our sin, while it remains underneath His covering.

Let's see:
cc: @Steve Owen; @David Taylor; @Enoch111
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
We were given by God to the Lord Jesus to redeem (John 6:39 etc.). Now if God gave us to Christ, why would He need to pay a price?
I know you have been popping in and out but I already said why I believe Christ had to pay a price, Steve. This is not in question (although we do hold different views).
Have you covered the reason why God gave us to the Lord Jesus but He still has to pay a price to redeem us? If you did, would you please give me the post number. It gets bewildering sifting through all the posts.
John Caldwell said:
@Steve Owen 's criticism was that the OP was too much Scripture and not enough commentary (not enough explanation).
@CharismaticLady; Not too much Scripture, but actually no explanation in the O.P. of what he believes the Scriptures to be saying.
 

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Theology 101 (sometimes that is harder than the more advance stuff as it is so easy to forget the basics).

The "certificate of debt" is a "proclamation". Scripture tells us that the law was added to magnify or to "highlight" our sin. This would be an actual debt to the law. But this is not necessarily an actual debt to God were there a righteousness of God that is apart from the law.
Ah! Theology 101. 'Always read to the end of the chapter.' ;) The righteousness of God that is apart from the law (Romans 3:21) is through faith in Jesus Christ (v.22). But, 'Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! [KJV, 'God forbid!'] On the contrary, we establish the law' (Romans 3:31). So the righteousness that is apart from the law actually establishes the law. As it is written in the context of the Servant of the LORD, 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law and make it honourable' (Isaiah 42:21).

So maybe you need to take seriously Christ's propitiation as described in Romans 3:25-26.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reformed1689

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Have you covered the reason why God gave us to the Lord Jesus but He still has to pay a price to redeem us? If you did, would you please give me the post number. It gets bewildering sifting through all the posts.
I believe so, Steve. The bewildering part is I have provided what I believe and you are looking for a specific answer for a specific question within my expressed view.

You ask why God gave us to the Lord Jesus but He still has to pay a price to redeem us. God giving us the Lord Jesus IS the price for our redemption. He had to be made sin for us, to suffer under the curse as we suffer under the curse. This is the act of reconciling mankind to God in Christ.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ah! Theology 101. 'Always read to the end of the chapter.' ;) The righteousness of God that is apart from the law (Romans 3:21) is through faith in Jesus Christ (v.22). But, 'Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! [KJV, 'God forbid!'] On the contrary, we establish the law' (Romans 3:31). So the righteousness that is apart from the law actually establishes the law. As it is written in the context of the Servant of the LORD, 'The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law and make it honourable' (Isaiah 42:21).

So maybe you need to take seriously Christ's propitiation as described in Romans 3:25-26.
No. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. That is the point.

Do you believe He canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross?

I ask because you seem to be taking issue with that claim.

If it helps to clarify, I do not believe the law was made obsolete or void. I believe that redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law (a "new covenant", so to speak).
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is what I mean when I say you are all over the place in your theology. You say you hold to Ransom Theory (which is absolutely a theory of paying ransom to Satan), but you don't. What ransom is Christ paying? Where is that ransom due to? What is the purpose?

And if you look at the verses in the NT that actually use the word ransom, Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:6, two out of those three the word for, as in for many, means in place of. In other words, we didn't have to pay our ransom, which means to purchase our release, because Christ paid it in our place. He was the substitute. In place of. What were we having to pay our release from? The penalty of sin, the wages of sin, eternal death.
I hold the Ransom Theory in the context of the early church, not the expression that that Satan was paid but that we were freed from the bondage of sin.

As you know (having studied the topic yourself) the Ransom Theory was expressed in several forms (a Ransom paid to Satan, to death, and simply paid).

I do believe we were ransomed by the blood of Christ. We will never agree on this point. All I can do is tell you what I believe.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here is the issue, @Steve Owen and @David Taylor ,

I understand Penal Substitution Theory. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.
I understand the Classic view of Atonement. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.
I understand Moral Influence Theory. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.
I understand Recapitulation Theory. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.
I understand Scapegoat Theory. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.
I understand Ontological Substitution Theory. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.
I understand Government Theory. It makes sense. It answers the question why Christ had to die.

BUT I believe the answers some of those theories provides is incomplete while others are simply wrong. I believe the Classic view correct.

Thus far we have not been able to get past the two of you arguing that all other theories fail to explain why Christ had do die. Until you can understand not only that they do but the "how and why" of their answers then there really is nothing to talk about. You cannot defend your position against another position until you understand how the other position addresses and answers the questions of import.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Let's talk about forgiving the debt then. If I forgive your debt on a loan does that make the debt go away? No. Someone paid that debt. In that case, it would be the lender. In the same way, our sins do not just go away because the debt is forgiven, the cost was paid for by the Savior. Our sins, our debt, was laid on him and he paid it.
who told you that you were naked?

is not being understood nor honored here imo. I mean neither one of you have actually come right out and accused Yah of needing a sacrifice to make us acceptable to He on this page, but neither am i noting Caiaphas anywhere?
If i forgive your debt on a loan, that does not make the debt go away, m. taylor?