A Contradiction in Substitution

[Guest]

I found the following in my files. I don't remember the source. I know I didn't write it. What do you all think?


If our debt concerning sin has been paid, is forgiveness necessary? Or even possible?

Suppose you broke the windshield of my car. For that, you owe me the price of a replacement windshield. Suppose that there’s just no way you can pay that price.

There are two ways in which you can get free of having to pay me.

1. I might become aware of your financial struggles, and forgive your debt.
2. You might have a good friend who would be willing to pay your debt for you.

Now if your friend has paid your debt for you, then there is no need for me to forgive your debt. You are no longer obligated to me. You own nothing. Indeed, it is impossible for me to forgive your debt. For you no longer have a debt. There’s no debt to forgive. Your debt has been paid.

All people have broken God’s law. Many say that because of God’s holiness and justice, we are all obligated to pay for having broken His law. They believe that on the cross, Jesus paid our debt for us. They also say that Jesus died on the cross so that the Father would be able to forgive us.

But if Jesus paid our debt for us, we are no longer obligated to the Father for having broken His law. We owe nothing. Therefore there’s no need for the Father’s forgiveness. Indeed, it is impossible for Him to forgive us. For we no longer have a debt to Him. There’s no debt to forgive. Our debt has been paid.

[Guest]

If our debt concerning sin has been paid, is forgiveness necessary? Or even possible?



My understanding of scripture is that it is a simultaneous transaction and that the two are linked as a cause and effect.
Jesus sacrifice was his payment for mankind's sin because he had that authority to stand in our place yet it effectuated forgiveness.
The forgiveness apparently was not unconditional and you may say that it really was'nt forgiveness but perhaps the forgiveness part is that God himself paid the price for us. Perhaps because of God's own law the price of justice had to be satisfied so the forgiveness part is that God paid it for us.

[Guest]

Paidion-

could it not simply be that the comparison to a worldly situation of someone paying someone else's debt is not an applicable comparison?

In God's system, in order for us to be forgiven by what Jesus did, we must have faith in Him and Him only, and follow him as a disciple. In other words, it's not an "automatic" thing. Jesus did all that needed to be done (on His part) in order for us to be forgiven. but we must also do our part.

TK

[Guest]

Thanks, fellows. If I understand you correctly, you are saying, in effect, that in order that Christ's substutionary act on the cross be effective, it must be appropriated by "trusting in His finished work" or "accepting Him as your personal Saviour" or "placing faith in Him" or whatever other human act is necessary. Then at the time of this act on our part, the substitution takes effect for us, and simultaneously we are forgiven.

Did I get it right?

[Guest]

Gee, Paidion, I am tempted to say "yes" but I have the sneaking suspicion that as soon as I do so you are going to slam me a good one.

I will wait for someone else to take the bait!

TK

[Guest]

Gee, Paidion, I am tempted to say "yes" but I have the sneaking suspicion that as soon as I do so you are going to slam me a good one.



Same here, i was feeling like a rodent being fed to a snake but here goes. Yes we are forgiven for our past sins and we are righteous positionally but going forward we need to confess and ask forgiveness for sins and repent. Christ left us so that the Holy Spirit could come and empower us to live righteously after receiving Jesus initially.
It was'nt Jesus's sacrifice that empowers us but it did make it possible for the Holy Spirit to come and do that.

[Guest]

I believe you are on point with your alternatives, Paidion. I know that you do not adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity. However, as far as I know, most, though not all Trinitarians believe in the substitionary [penal] atonement. Yet the doctrine of substitutionary [penal] atonement creates a problem for the The doctrine of the Trinity. I've heard many argue that there was a separation between the Father and the Son while Jesus was lifted up hammered to the cross, and that the Father "turned His back" on His Son. However, I think that (Pseudo?)-Methodius gave an orthodox presentation of the unity of the Trinity when he said:

• . . . one of the sacred Trinity, which now, by the appearance of God in the flesh, hath even lighted upon earth. They say: “The whole earth is full of His glory.” For we believe that, together with the Son, who was made man for our sakes, according to the good pleasure of His will, was also present the Father, who is inseparable from Him as to His divine nature, anal also the Spirit, who is of one and the same essence with Him. For, as says Paul, the interpreter of the divine oracle, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” He thus shows that the Father was in the Son, because that one and the same will worked in them.1

Because the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is strictly monotheistic, I do not believe one can hold to the doctrine of the substitutionary [penal] atonement, without avoiding tri-theism. Therefore, for Trinitarians, I believe this is one reason to reject this view of atonement as a sufficient model, and as a side note, it appears that this model of atonement positions The Son and The Father out of alignment, in the sense that the Son has to do something to either permit or move the Father to do something The Father was initially reluctant or hesitant to do: forgive sin[ners].


1 Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna II in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eds., (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2004), 6.384.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Your story of the broken window would seem to trivialize the problem, unless you mean that the culprit deliberately broke the windshield. You see, our sins are crimes against a holy God.

When sin is viewed as a crime, and atonement offered by an innocent third party, then it is still a question of grace whether the pardon will be granted by Him against whom the crime has been committed. Even after the atonement or propitiation is made, the transgressor remains as deserving of punishment as before. We then have place for justice and mercy: for the display of indignation against sin, and the forgiveness of the sinner; for a view of sin that is just, and the forgiveness that is in and through Messiah.

If sin were merely a debt, and not a crime, it might be forgiven without atonement, and if sacrifice paid the debt, you would be correct, there would be no place for forgiveness.

Paul says it well:
Romans 3:23-26 (New King James Version)

23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. 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, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God would not be just if He merely forgave us, but He is both just and merciful; justice and mercy meet at the cross.

[Guest]

The problem that I see with the commonly held idea that Jesus paid our debt for us - is but what is this debt that we owed? Was it not our life? We cannot pay that debt and still survive it so that we might continue to live. This is the debt Jesus paid that we could not.

[Guest]

Gee, Paidion, I am tempted to say "yes" but I have the sneaking suspicion that as soon as I do so you are going to slam me a good one.

No. I had no ulterior motive for my question. I didn't intend to slam anyone. It was just a simple, honest question.

I will wait for someone else to take the bait!

I assure you; I wasn't baiting anyone.

Your story of the broken window would seem to trivialize the problem, unless you mean that the culprit deliberately broke the windshield. You see, our sins are crimes against a holy God.

It wasn't "my" story. I accept no ownership of the story in the slightest. I did quote it ... but only to see how various people would deal with it.

If sin were merely a debt, and not a crime, it might be forgiven without atonement, and if sacrifice paid the debt, you would be correct, there would be no place for forgiveness.

Correct in what? In this thread, I haven't affirmed anything.