What I believe about the Atonement

[reformed1689]

There was no "debt", it was a "certificate of debt" (the law shows us our sin).

What is the difference between "debt" and "certificate of debt"? That doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.

Do you think that God is literally a lawyer sitting in heaven keeping holy ledgers?

Do I think God keeps account of our wrong-doings? Yes. Absolutely. Do I believe God keeps an account of our good things? Yes. Do I think we will stand to give an accounting of those things? YES. All of this is in Scripture John.

 

[John Caldwell]

What is the difference between "debt" and "certificate of debt"? That doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
Do I think God keeps account of our wrong-doings? Yes. Absolutely. Do I believe God keeps an account of our good things? Yes. Do I think we will stand to give an accounting of those things? YES. All of this is in Scripture John.

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.

 

[John Caldwell]

@David Taylor ,

Cutting to the chase - instead of punishing sin in order to forgive us I believe that God requires repentance in the form of dying to sin and being made alive in Christ in order to be forgiven. This is, I know, contrary to your theory. BUT that is why I gave you the illustration of the $35 boxer briefs. Until you know, you don't know. You have to consider that there is a righteousness of God manifested apart form the law before you can rightly judge between the righteousness of God manifested through the law verses apart from the law.

I know at this time it is a bit beyond you because it was beyond me when I was in your shoes. All I can do is explain my view and hope that you revisit it if you ever decide to reevaluate your conclusions.

I can tell you that I believe Scripture sufficient and complete (and that it makes sense) without the addition of Penal Substitution Theory. That you need the theory to make sense of Scripture is not something I begrudge you but I no longer need it and have come to believe it a false doctrine.

 

[reformed1689]

Theology 101 (sometimes that is harder than the more advance stuff as it is so easy to forget the basics).

Agreed, but I was asking you for clarification to try and understand your position.

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.

Yes, the law came to increase the Trespass (Romans 5:20). And yes, it is a debt owed for the breaking of the Law, God's Law, which is a debt owed to God because it is His law, not the law of man or some ambiguous law with no entity. The Righteousness of God apart from the Law (Romans 3:21) does not state that there is no debt owed for the sin. It doesn't even come close to stating this. What this is saying is that we are declared righteous, despite the fact that we are not righteous, because of something outside of the Law because no man can keep the Law (except for Christ). Faith in what Christ accomplished on the cross and his resurrection is the righteousness apart from the Law. We cannot keep the Law but Christ could. Therefore, our Righteousness is found in Christ rather than perfectly keeping the Law. We see this explicitly in the ver next verse that says "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ..." (Romans 3:22). We receive this righteousness through faith in Christ and the propitiation by his blood made to God (Romans 3:25).

Christ could only do that if he was able to satisfy the debt that was owed. To pay the penalty. Which he did and did perfectly.

 

[reformed1689]

I know at this time it is a bit beyond you because it was beyond me when I was in your shoes. All I can do is explain my view and hope that you revisit it if you ever decide to reevaluate your conclusions.

It's not beyond me. What I have said is that your view, from what I have been able to ascertain, is not wrong, it is just not complete. Repentance and being made alive in Christ is not outside of my viewpoint, it is part of it.

I can tell you that I believe Scripture sufficient and complete (and that it makes sense) without the addition of Penal Substitution Theory. That you need the theory to make sense of Scripture is not something I begrudge you but I no longer need it and have come to believe it a false doctrine.

It is not an addition. It is clearly part of the Scriptural record.

 

[John Caldwell]

It's not beyond me. What I have said is that your view, from what I have been able to ascertain, is not wrong, it is just not complete. Repentance and being made alive in Christ is not outside of my viewpoint, it is part of it.


It is not an addition. It is clearly part of the Scriptural record.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your earlier comment (that you did not understand my position).

My point stands, however. I believe that we are redeemed (purchased) not by gold or sliver but by the precious blood of Christ. His suffering was to purchase us.

 

[John Caldwell]

Agreed, but I was asking you for clarification to try and understand your position.


Yes, the law came to increase the Trespass (Romans 5:20). And yes, it is a debt owed for the breaking of the Law, God's Law, which is a debt owed to God because it is His law, not the law of man or some ambiguous law with no entity. The Righteousness of God apart from the Law (Romans 3:21) does not state that there is no debt owed for the sin. It doesn't even come close to stating this. What this is saying is that we are declared righteous, despite the fact that we are not righteous, because of something outside of the Law because no man can keep the Law (except for Christ). Faith in what Christ accomplished on the cross and his resurrection is the righteousness apart from the Law. We cannot keep the Law but Christ could. Therefore, our Righteousness is found in Christ rather than perfectly keeping the Law. We see this explicitly in the ver next verse that says "The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ..." (Romans 3:22). We receive this righteousness through faith in Christ and the propitiation by his blood made to God (Romans 3:25).

Christ could only do that if he was able to satisfy the debt that was owed. To pay the penalty. Which he did and did perfectly.

I agree that Christ suffered the wages of sin on behalf of mankind. I believe He is the "second Adam", the "Firstborn".

 

[reformed1689]

I agree that Christ suffered the wages of sin on behalf of mankind. I believe He is the "second Adam", the "Firstborn".

So he was the substitute on behalf of mankind.

 

[reformed1689]

My point stands, however. I believe that we are redeemed (purchased) not by gold or sliver but by the precious blood of Christ. His suffering was to purchase us.

And what was He purchasing us from exactly? Who was he paying?

 

[John Caldwell]

And what was He purchasing us from exactly? Who was he paying?

David, you should be beyond these elementary questions. We disagree but you should by now have at least a fundamental understanding of Scripture and the gospel even past our disagreements. He was not "paying" anyone.


Romans 8:1-2 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

 

[reformed1689]

He was not "paying" anyone.

Then what was he purchasing John? These are not elementary questions, these are important theological questions. I believe there are holes and things you are ignoring in your viewpoint. You said he purchased us. Purchased us from what? Paid the penalty for what? And to whom did he pay that penalty?

You don't just make a payment to nothing. That's nonsense.

 

[John Caldwell]

Then what was he purchasing John?

You don't just make a payment to nothing. That's nonsense.

These are elementary issues, David. Christ was redeeming mankind, paying the price for us. The philosophical question is "to whom was the price paid". Scripture does not address redemption in that context. Christ paid the price, suffered the consequences, redeemed us, the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, by His stripes we are healed, He learned obedience form His suffering, He was made perfect by the things He suffered, we were purchased by the precious blood of Christ.

The reason I do not address all of your questions is because most of your questions are based on worldly humanistic philosophy. The questions you ask demonstrate a faithlessness in what is actually written in Scripture.

This is like @Enoch111 's argument that there has to be literal books in heaven that God thumbs through. You are missing the elementary truths of Scripture.

 

[reformed1689]

These are elementary issues, David. Christ was redeeming mankind, paying the price for us. The philosophical question is "to whom was the price paid". Scripture does not address redemption in that context. Christ paid the price, suffered the consequences, redeemed us, the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, by His stripes we are healed, He learned obedience form His suffering, He was made perfect by the things He suffered, we were purchased by the precious blood of Christ.

The reason I do not address all of your questions is because most of your questions are based on worldly humanistic philosophy. The questions you ask demonstrate a faithlessness in what is actually written in Scripture.

This is like @Enoch111 's argument that there has to be literal books in heaven that God thumbs through. You are missing the elementary truths of Scripture.

John, if there is a price there is something that has set that price. The price was paid to someone. These answers are in Scripture. The price was paid to satisfy God's wrath. This is in Scripture. The reason, I suspect, that you will not answer these questions is because it would force you to affirm the biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

 

[John Caldwell]

John, if there is a price there is something that has set that price. The price was paid to someone. These answers are in Scripture. The price was paid to satisfy God's wrath. This is in Scripture. The reason, I suspect, that you will not answer these questions is because it would force you to affirm the biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

No, David. That reasoning is based on your assumptions and your desire to believe your theory (something I do understand).

Our freedom (as a nation) was purchased with a price (with the sacrifices of people). This price was paid but not paid to anyone.

Our freedom from sin and death was purchased with a price (with the precious blood of Christ). This price was paid but not paid to anyone.

Where you falter and stray from Scripture is in what you assume. It is in the theories and philosophies that lock your view into a narrow humanistic box.

I told you that I had a friend who paid the "ultimate price" in terms of dying in service to our nation in Bosnia. Who do you believe received this payment? (Hint - the question is nonsense, any answer you give is wrong)

You assume your theory onto Scripture and then act shocked that those who do not hold your theory take Scripture at face value.

I do hope one day that you will be able to understand what I am talking about. Until then I wish you all the best and hope God uses you to reach people for Christ in your ministry. If that day comes I hope you will be an even greater resource for discipling those for the Kingdom.

 

[reformed1689]

Our freedom (as a nation) was purchased with a price (with the sacrifices of people). This price was paid but not paid to anyone.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Our freedom was not a payment of debt as Christ's death was.

Our freedom from sin and death was purchased with a price (with the precious blood of Christ). This price was paid but not paid to anyone.

Purchased because of a debt owed. This is something you have affirmed. So this is different than your flawed example.

 

[John Caldwell]

This is comparing apples and oranges. Our freedom was not a payment of debt as Christ's death was.
Purchased because of a debt owed. This is something you have affirmed. So this is different than your flawed example.

Your statement is that it is nonsense to think a payment was made but not to someone.

My illustration is very applicable and highlights our differences. You assume someone had to be paid because you overlay your theory onto Scripture.

But the Bible NEVER presents Christ as paying a price to someone. Just like anyone who pays a price (suffers or dies) for another there is no one to receive the payment (that is not the point).

As an example, you assume I believe Christ paid an owed debt (a debt owed to someone). Even here you see things through your own presuppositions and project meaning onto my words.

The ONLY way to reach your conclusion is to presuppose your theory onto Scripture. I believe your theory (what is not actually in Scripture) is false and dangerous (it is "another gospel").

 

[reformed1689]

Your statement is that it is nonsense to think a payment was made but not to someone.

We are talking within the context of debt and you know it.

My illustration is very applicable and hilights our differences. You assume someone had to be paid because you overlay your theory onto Scripture.

No, I assume someone had to be paid because it is a debt owed. Debt owed to who?

The ONLY way to reach your conclusion is to presuppose your theory onto Scripture. I believe your theory (what is not actually in Scripture) is false and dangerous (it is "another gospel").

We have already shown you it is in Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

We are talking within the context of debt and you know it.


No, I assume someone had to be paid because it is a debt owed. Debt owed to who?


We have already shown you it is in Scripture.

That is the difference, David. You are talking about a debt owed to someone. I (and Scripture) am not.

You think we are both talking about a debt owed to someone and you think I accept this because you cannot see past your theory.

You are wrong.

 

[reformed1689]

That is the difference, David. You are talking about a debt owed to someone. I (and Scripture) am not.

You think we are both talking about a debt owed to someone and you think I accept this because you cannot see past your theory.

You are wrong.

You have flat said you are talking about a certificate of debt.

 

[Steve Owen]

But the Bible NEVER presents Christ as paying a price to someone.

Revelation 5:9. 'You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for you were slain, and have redeemed [NIV. 'purchased'] us to God by Your blood......'
To redeem or purchase anything there is always a price.