Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is monetary imagery of Jesus' salvation work Scriptural?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by RBerman View Post
    These two passages came to mind:
    Give us this day our daily bread,
    12 and forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:11-12)

    “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (from Matthew 18)

    The word "redemption" does not appear in either text, but the forgiveness of debts is clearly used as a metaphor for the forgiveness of sins. Within the logic of Matthew 18, the manager's debt is owed to the king. Matthew 6 doesn't specify, but a debt is normally forgiven by the one to whom it is owed, which in this case would be God.
    You can also cite the Lukan examples, which would be from the hypothetical Q-source, for those who hold to the two-source hypothesis, thus an older source than any of the present gospels. Note that the debt here is forgiven, not paid, and not paid by another.
    Last edited by robrecht; 05-03-2014, 09:05 AM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Note that the debt here is forgiven, not paid, and not paid by another.
      That is true. Note also that the punishment is carried out by a third party, and that the king had to find out what happened from tattletales, and that it was possible for the unforgiving manager to later pay his own debt to escape the prison, etc. As was noted early in this thread, we shouldn't overstretch metaphors. The point of the story is the correlation between forgiving and being forgiven.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
        Why don't you ever tell me stop posting, Paprika? What's wrong with you?
        Your posts aren't sufficiently screwball-worthy

        Comment


        • #19
          RBerman:

          In Matthew 18:21-35, sincere repentance is all that is required to propitiate the king's wrath or displeasure (if I may speak in such a way). In the parable, the debt owed by the slave is simply rescinded by the king in response to the slave expressing his sincere desire and willingness to pay what he owes. The king has mercy on the slave. That said, no one has substituted for the slave by either serving his prison sentence or paying off the debt (ten thousand talents). At the end of the parable, however, the king reinstates the slave's debt for subsequently failing to have mercy on a fellow slave who owed him money.

          (Note: It should be clear that the forgiveness of the king in this parable is not unconditional.)
          Last edited by The Remonstrant; 05-03-2014, 10:36 AM.
          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            Your posts aren't sufficiently screwball-worthy
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #21
              (If I made the same basic point as someone/anyone else on this thread, forgive me: I have not read all the posts here as of yet.)
              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                (If I made the same basic point as someone/anyone else on this thread, forgive me: I have not read all the posts here as of yet.)
                I forgive your debt, for I am only in debt to others, namely Jesus and Paul, for these insights.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  I forgive your debt, for I am only in debt to others, namely Jesus and Paul, for these insights.
                  I have not yet read your posts above, but thank you for rescinding my debt! I will subsequently show no mercy to my fellow slaves as in the parable.
                  Last edited by The Remonstrant; 05-03-2014, 09:32 AM.
                  For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    I have some difficulty seeing this as a scriptural/nonscriptural issue. It is an analogy. Money really has nothing to do with it beyond the visible analogy.
                    Agreed. Just as in the Old Testament, it was the blood of bulls that was required for satisfaction of the "debt" of sin, not a cash payment. In Hebrews 10, I think that the implication is that the "debt" of sin was "carried over" annually (an accounting analogy) until Christ died, in effect "paying the debt in full", instead of rolling it over to the next year, year after year.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Agreed. Just as in the Old Testament, it was the blood of bulls that was required for satisfaction of the "debt" of sin, not a cash payment. In Hebrews 10, I think that the implication is that the "debt" of sin was "carried over" annually (an accounting analogy) until Christ died, in effect "paying the debt in full", instead of rolling it over to the next year, year after year.
                      When is sin ever considered a debt? You think there's the implication of debt in Hebrews 10, can you show it?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                        These two passages came to mind:
                        Give us this day our daily bread,
                        12 and forgive us our debts,
                        as we also have forgiven our debtors. (Matthew 6:11-12)

                        “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (from Matthew 18)

                        The word "redemption" does not appear in either text, but the forgiveness of debts is clearly used as a metaphor for the forgiveness of sins. Within the logic of Matthew 18, the manager's debt is owed to the king. Matthew 6 doesn't specify, but a debt is normally forgiven by the one to whom it is owed, which in this case would be God.
                        I agree with robrecht that here there's nothing in there about our debts being paid by Jesus; they are forgiven, or cancelled.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          When is sin ever considered a debt?
                          I think that's just an "expression", not an actual descriptor. Like if you were in trouble, and I "bailed you out", I might say "you OWE me". Do I imply that you owe me "money". I am implying that there is something you need to do to "repay" my action on your behalf.

                          You think there's the implication of debt in Hebrews 10, can you show it?
                          No, I think the "debt" is just a euphemism for the fact that there is a "satisfaction" of a requirement.

                          God required animal sacrifices as a temporary covering of sins until the perfect sacrifice of Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).
                          “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).
                          When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21).
                          When Cain and Abel brought sacrifices, Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5).

                          It is because of sin that a sacrifice is required, and it is referred to as a "debt" for the sake of simplicity.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I think that's just an "expression", not an actual descriptor. Like if you were in trouble, and I "bailed you out", I might say "you OWE me". Do I imply that you owe me "money". I am implying that there is something you need to do to "repay" my action on your behalf.
                            Is this concept in Scripture?
                            No, I think the "debt" is just a euphemism for the fact that there is a "satisfaction" of a requirement.

                            God required animal sacrifices as a temporary covering of sins until the perfect sacrifice of Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10).
                            “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).
                            When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21).
                            When Cain and Abel brought sacrifices, Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5).

                            It is because of sin that a sacrifice is required, and it is referred to as a "debt" for the sake of simplicity.
                            So we are agreed "our 'debt' which Christ paid for us" is not a Scriptural description of Christ's work, but something extra-Biblical?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              I agree with robrecht that here there's nothing in there about our debts being paid by Jesus; they are forgiven, or cancelled.
                              And, in the accounting analogy, a "forgiven" or "cancelled" debt is stamped "paid in full".

                              Paul uses "imputed" as an accounting term, of sorts:

                              Rom 4:[11]*And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
                              Rom 4:[21]*And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. [22]*And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.[23]*Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; [24]*But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; [25]*Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
                              Rom 5:[12]*Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [13]* (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [14]*Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

                              James 2:[23]*And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

                              1677. ἐλλογέω ellogeō; from 1722 and 3056 (in the sense of account, reckoning); to charge to one's account, impute:—charge...to...account(1), imputed(1).
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                I agree with robrecht that here there's nothing in there about our debts being paid by Jesus; they are forgiven, or cancelled.
                                That's true. You can't derive the doctrinal of substitutionary penal satisfaction from those texts alone. You do that from other texts like Romans 3-4, 2 Corinthians 5, and Hebrews 9-10, which show that the forgiveness came from Jesus propitiating God's wrath over our sin by dying "for us," making us eligible for forgiveness by imputing our sins to Christ, and Christ's righteousness to us.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X