[CCWoody]

A tidbit of good ol' Puritan logic from the good doctor.

[ventana]

Limited but lovely. It flies in the face of the promise made to us by our Lord, but then, that's Calvinism for ya.

[RnMomof7]

This could be a lively debate Woody :>)

[JWinNC]

"I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not?"
It is.

"If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not."
He did.

"If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died?"
Because belief (or lack thereof) is unique. It is the ONLY requirement for Salvation.

"If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
He did.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Peace,
JWinNC

[babylonian]

Jesus did die for the sins of all. That's God doing His part. This piece leaves out the part where God (Jesus) puts the onus on each individual to accept it, and the consequences of not accepting it.

It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

[DittoJed2]

You answer, "Because of unbelief." I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

And if unbelief is that sin which makes people forfeit that which Christ did for them, then what about those who never get an opportunity to believe or not to believe? Do they get a get-into-heaven free pass because they live in ignorance of what Christ did? And, if so, is there then some other way to heaven than by explicit faith in Jesus Christ (such as dying in complete ignorance)?

[The Grammarian]

I like Dr. Owen somewhat, but he's flat-out wrong here. He follows the Penal Substitionary Theory to its logical conclusion, at least--more than can be said for most that believe it is the only (or the "best") way to describe the Atonement.

But since when can justice be served by punishing the innocent for the guilty's crimes?

Biblical Theology has an article that shows the various theories of atonement, and their logical conclusions. It also says this about the Penal Substitutionary Theory:

[It] assumes that the Trinity divided itself and punished Jesus on the Cross. It assumes that the punishment of the innocent is wrong for man, but somehow, would be right for God. It assumes that sin can be transferred from one to another, which is an ethical fiction. Righteousness can no more be imputed [in the "transfer of character" sense] to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool. While the theory assumes that Christ paid the sin-debt, but yet for this key issue they are without any Scriptural evidence. Consistent Calvinists will say this payment is limited to the Elect only and to their peril they must rob the Scriptures of all the references to the will of God to save all. Most who hold to this atonement theory are inconsistent in their use of it. When were sins paid? (assuming that they were paid) On the Cross of course! Then in reality, when someone gets “saved” they are actually just waking up to the fact that they have been saved all the time; they just woke up to the fact that they were paid for 2000 years ago. The inevitable conclusion of payment is, that if Jesus died for all, then all must be acquitted on judgment day.

He then gives a better option:

The Governmental Theory

The essence of this theory is that Jesus voluntarily suffered as a substitute for punishment. To be able to punish someone they must be guilty. But to torture an innocent man is to make him suffer. Suffering inflicted upon a man to make him better in the future is not punishment, but discipline: to be punishment, it must be inflicted for evil deeds done in the past. Suffering endured for the sake of society is not punishment: if accepted voluntarily, it is the heroism of self-sacrifice; if inflicted by arbitrary authority, it is injustice on the one side and martyrdom on the other. That the suffering inflicted is deserved is a necessary element in the conception of punishment.

This is illustrated from the form of oriental law that is still practiced in some places in the Middle East today. For example, in Turkey a criminal gets a one year prison sentence. His family cannot provide on their own. So according to their law, the wife, friend, or child can substitute for the breadwinner by taking their place in prison, or could even go as far as substituting in death. In the view of the government, this would satisfy the interest of justice. Through this approach, the demands of the government are met and the guilty given grace by the innocent substitute.

With this system we can still have the pardon the Bible talks about through the provision made by our Savior. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus was punished on the Cross, but everywhere it is said that He suffered. Luke 9:22; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1.

If Jesus suffered, he was not punished. If he was not punished, he was not sinful on the Cross. But what about 2 Cor. 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us”? The Scriptures commonly use the singular term “sin” in the sense of a sin-offering. In the Old Testament we are told that the animal sacrifice was to become “sin” but yet it is translated sin-offering. In Heb. 10:4, it is said that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If we say that Jesus literally became sin, then we must go against the Scripture and say that bull and goats were effectual offerings because they transferred sin.

[Elsie]

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

---

What about... "Some of the sins of some men"?

[Hank Kerchief]

There is nothing in Scripture about the atonement being "punishment," and this is the mistake. There is a false assumption that somehow a set degree of punishment is assigned to every sin and that someone must bear that punishment, as though, once that punishment has been born, the sin is wiped out or canceled.

But sin is an evil, and punishment is an evil (else why would anyone want to avoid it?). So this idea essentially says the evil of punishment cancels the evil of sin. Or, in common terms, two wrongs make a right.

This is both absurd and dishonoring to God. The atonement was not some kind of payment in suffering for sin, as thought suffering were some coin which someone was willing to accept to forgive sin. Does God cherish suffering?

The atonement was pictured by the Old Testament sacrifices. Is there anywhere in the Old Testament that the idea of the animals being "punished" is taught. Always, the shed blood of the animals is described as a "covering" (which, by the way is the exact meaning of the atonement.)

The atonement was not a transaction that bought the forgiveness of an exact number of sins, but a contract between the Father and Son, which purchased universal reconciliation for all those who would throw down the arms of rebellion and accept the pardon offered in the precious Blood of Christ.

A limited atonement is the product of human invention and belongs properly to a limited God with limited Sovereignty. The atonement the Bible talks about is infinite in scope, and efficacious for all who will accept it.

Hank

[ppaul]

BOOKMARKED
"X-Files"