Nature of the Atonement

[selah]

I think he (Paidion) would say that the atonement empowers us to overcome sin and live righteously, but he does not believe in imputed righteousness, if i remember correctly.

Impute: (American Heritage Dictionary, p. 648) "to attribute (wickedness or merit) to a person as transmitted by another."

If this be Paidion's (or yours) meaning of the word "imputed," then I am guessing you are referring to the transmission of merit by the Father to the new believer. If this be the case, I question Paidion's view since "our sins are as white as snow" and the Lord puts our forgiven sins as far as the east is from the west and as deep as the ocean floor. There are more scriptures to this effect. Can anyone think of scriptures that would NOT indicate "imputed righteousness?"

Abba i pray for Paidion's well being and i ask you to shower him and his family with your grace, and i ask you to put in his heart a desire to contact us, in Jesus Christ we pray, Amen.

Amen!

[steve7150]

Impute: (American Heritage Dictionary, p. 648) "to attribute (wickedness or merit) to a person as transmitted by another."

If this be Paidion's (or yours) meaning of the word "imputed," then I am guessing you are referring to the transmission of merit by the Father to the new believer. If this be the case, I question Paidion's view since "our sins are as white as snow" and the Lord puts our forgiven sins as far as the east is from the west and as deep as the ocean floor. There are more scriptures to this effect. Can anyone think of scriptures that would NOT indicate "imputed righteousness?"




I questioned his view on atonement also but he can defend his views very well. He wrote his own thread called "the Supreme Sacrifice" etc where he outlined his reasons.
As to "imputed" , yes i think it means "transmission of merit" to any believer whether new or old. The only verses i can think of off hand that might appear to contradict "imputed righteousness" would be in Matthew "Lord Lord did we not prophecize in your name" and Hebrews where it says to those who tasted the heavenly gift and fall away, it is impossible to restore.

[TK]

steve wrote, of Paidion:

but he can defend his views very well

You can say that again. Often the best i can muster when he is saying something that doesn't sit right with me is "just because."

TK

[Jepne]

I do not see in scripture where we are considered righteous just because we made a confession of faith. Scripture says we must live righteously - as in 1 John 1 and 2 - and James says that our works, the way we live and walk, will prove our faith.

And, do we not have to repent before our sins are made white as snow? I have always had to repent before I was free of a sin. And then I was really free of it!

1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

It is conditional.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we are truly righteous, because we have become Christians, why would these verses be necessary?

2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

Very conditional.

9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.

Perhaps these prove my point? Jepne

[steve7150]

I do not see in scripture where we are considered righteous just because we made a confession of faith. Scripture says we must live righteously - as in 1 John 1 and 2 - and James says that our works, the way we live and walk, will prove our faith.

And, do we not have to repent before our sins are made white as snow? I have always had to repent before I was free of a sin. And then I was really free of it!

1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

It is conditional.








If a confession of faith in Christ as Lord is sincere i think it does qualify one as a believer. Believer means one who believes. Certainly we should walk in the light but i think the above verse is referring to fellowship with God , not that we lose salvation after any unconfessed sin. Of course if we live in a pattern of sin then Christ could not be our Lord because then sin would have dominion over us. Paul said in the life of the believer sin will not have dominion over us, not that we will never sin.

[Jepne]

Very interesting reply.

Yes, even though “even the devils believe”, when we make a sincere confession, recognizing our need for Him, we connect with Him and He gives us new life. The past is past, YET, there are strongholds that remain to be broken. When we return to some of the ‘vomit’ to see if it was really all that bad, our fellowship with God becomes clouded until we repent of it and let Him wash us white as snow again, and so the process continues until it does not need to anymore. Do you see it this way?

The verses in 1 John are referring to actually BEING righteous. Living righteously.
Surely, some unbelievers live more righteously than I – meaning they are more honest, more open, and quicker to forgive.

Yes, to live in a pattern of sin would prove to man and God that Jesus was not our lord. It would make an open door for demonic influence to win back territory, or even gain new territory in our souls. Our fellowship would be broken with God, and we would be in need of deliverance once again. Try to worship God after you tell your neighbour off.

Can a Christian have a demon? Can sin have dominion over him? If he wants it, invites it, allows it. Do we not all know Christians, even ourselves, who seem to be under the dominion of darkness in some area of their/our lives?

I see the Christus Victor model as more relational with a Father who loves us, and the Penal Substitution model as more of a legal contract with an angry God-Judge.

[steve7150]

Can a Christian have a demon? Can sin have dominion over him? If he wants it, invites it, allows it. Do we not all know Christians, even ourselves, who seem to be under the dominion of darkness in some area of their/our lives?

I see the Christus Victor model as more relational with a Father who loves us, and the Penal Substitution model as more of a legal contract with an angry God-Judge.





I think the "propitiation" or penal substitute satifies God's spritual law of justice making the believer positionally righteous and from that position we qualify to have a relationship with God and IMHO authority over the devil because Jesus destroyed the works of the devil. I don't think God was angry with us because he knows us better then we know ourselves therefore he knows we are like water, seeking the lowest level. In addition Peter tells us the sacrifice of Christ was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world so God knew what our behavior would be.
With regards to sin having dominion, it might be hard to define it but it reminds me of a time when a US senator was asked to define pornography. He said he could'nt but he will know it when he sees it.

[Jepne]

OK – Luke 4:18 Jesus was anointed to proclaim liberty to the captives and to set at liberty those who are oppressed.

God’s ‘spiritual law of justice’ has more to do with making things right than punishments and penalties. Penalties do not change a person’s heart.

What does positionally righteous mean? That God and man do not see my sins, even though there is a seething cauldron of them under the covers? Would that not lead a person to hypocrisy and guilt? For sure, He covers my past sins of which I have repented, but current ones need to be dealt with as 1 John 1 shows, as well as the writings of Paul, the words of Jesus, and the Prophets.

Why should God want to cover over our sins rather than set us free from them?

Before Jesus ever went to the cross, he set free the woman taken in adultery, and did not condemn the woman at the well, but spoke words that would set her free. What parent would like his children to be positionally righteous – so they ‘qualify’ to be treated as well-behaved, when in reality they are rebellious rats and headed for worse harm?

“I don't think God was angry with us because he knows us better then we know ourselves therefore he knows we are like water, seeking the lowest level.”

The Penal Substitution model says that Jesus’ crucifixion was because of God’s wrath on man and He took it out on Jesus.

“With regards to sin having dominion,” if you were hooked on, under the dominion of, pornography, you would know it, no? And Christians do get hooked on pornography, among other things.

“Jesus destroyed the works of the devil.” Maybe that could be another thread. It seems obvious that the works of the devil are still in full operation in the world. Where IS Paidion when we need him? There must be something lost in the translation?

Be blessed.

[Homer]

And why would we think God is unable to accomplish more than one thing through Christ's atonement? I believe He set us free and also internalized the punishment due us. There is a cost to forgiveness and He bore that cost.

My own view of imputed righteousness is probably somewhat different than the popular view. I do not believe Jesus went to the cross guilty of our sins nor do I believe we have become innocent. If you have commited murder. you will always be guilty of that crime. If you steal, you are always guilty of theft, even though you pay it back. In the atonement, although we are guilty, God treats us as though we are innocent, and He treated His Son, the "Lamb without blemish", as though He was guilty.

I believe that when the scriptures say He "became sin" and He "bore our sin" a metonym is being used, meaning he suffered the due penalty for our transgressions.

Blessings, Homer

[steve7150]

Before Jesus ever went to the cross, he set free the woman taken in adultery, and did not condemn the woman at the well, but spoke words that would set her free. What parent would like his children to be positionally righteous – so they ‘qualify’ to be treated as well-behaved, when in reality they are rebellious rats and headed for worse harm?

“I don't think God was angry with us because he knows us better then we know ourselves therefore he knows we are like water, seeking the lowest level.”

The Penal Substitution model says that Jesus’ crucifixion was because of God’s wrath on man and He took it out on Jesus.




This is not an either/or scenerio , like you are either positionally righteous or you can be set free from your sins, the atonement covers both and more.
Positionally righteous means we are credited with Christ's righteousness by faith in him and by God's grace. Grace is unearned, unmerited favor because it's a gift from God. It's necessary to meet the requirements of the Law of Moses , as he said he came to fulfill the law. As part of receiving Christ as Lord we receive the Holy Spirit who empowers the believer to live righteously but as James said, "we all stumble." Stumbling means a temporary setback while still on the path but we sincerely confess our sins dust ourselves off and keep moving forward.
With regards to the penal substitution theory . i must correct my view to the "propitiation" view or the satisfaction of God's law of justice view.
Back to positionally righteous, it says in Hebrews that God has forgotten the sins of the believer, that sounds like it might fit that definition.