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

  • #31
    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.
    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.
    The author of Hebrews speaks of Jesus' death as the consummate purification offering. By the spilling of his blood, Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. He is now our high priest who makes intercession for us in heaven. Simply put, the author of Hebrews does not make use of the debt/payment analogy in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. What we do find is a great emphasis on (a) Jesus' incarnational obedience, and (b) his death being the once-for-all purification offering (expiation) for sins. Jesus not only serves as our example, but he is our brother (2:17), sacrifice for sins (1:3; 9:26-28), mediator of a new covenant (9:15; 12:24), and high priest as well (4:14-16; 9:11,12). He is the source/pioneer of our faith (12:2), who motivates believers to endure in faith so we may trust in God's promises until the end. The focus is on Jesus as our example and representative.

    Edited to add: Scripture references are not exhaustive.
    Last edited by The Remonstrant; 05-03-2014, 10:17 AM.
    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      So we are agreed "our 'debt' which Christ paid for us" is not a Scriptural description of Christ's work, but something extra-Biblical?
      Lemme think on that, but at first blush, I'd say, sure! I'm not really certain why it's necessary to be so technical about this, as Paul (in particular) often used analogies understood by his contemporaries. (fighting the fight, finishing the course, running the race... are we REALLY "running a race" by living the Christian life?)
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
        The author of Hebrews speaks of Jesus' death as the consummate purification offering. By the spilling of his blood, Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. He is now our high priest who makes intercession for us in heaven. Simply put, the author of Hebrews does not make use of the debt/payment analogy in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. What we do find is a great emphasis on (a) Jesus' incarnational obedience and (b) his death being the once-for-all purification offering (expiation) for sins. Jesus not only serves as our example, but he is our brother (2:17), sacrifice for sins, mediator of a new covenant (9:15; 12:24) and high priest as well (4:14-16; 9:11,12). He is the source/pioneer of our faith (12:2), who motivates believers to endure in faith so we may trust in God's promises until the end. The focus is on Jesus as our example and representative.
        Which is why we don't do annual sacrifices anymore. Jesus put an end to that by his "once-for-all purification offering", if you want to call it that. The euphemism for that is "he paid our debt".

        Source: dictionary.com


        eu·phe·mism [yoo-fuh-miz-uhm] noun
        1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
        2. the expression so substituted: “To pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”

        © Copyright Original Source

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Which is why we don't do annual sacrifices anymore. Jesus put an end to that by his "once-for-all purification offering", if you want to call it that. The euphemism for that is "he paid our debt".

          Source: dictionary.com


          eu·phe·mism [yoo-fuh-miz-uhm] noun
          1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
          2. the expression so substituted: “To pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”

          © Copyright Original Source

          I am not denying Jesus as a substitute or the necessity of his death. The new covenant was inaugurated by Jesus' blood. The author of Hebrews focuses on Jesus' sacrifice as the purification offering/expiation for sins, not as a payment of some sort. The purification offering finds its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures.
          Last edited by The Remonstrant; 05-03-2014, 10:33 AM.
          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
            I am not denying Jesus as a substitute or the necessity of his death. The new covenant was inaugurated by Jesus' blood. The author of Hebrews focuses on Jesus' sacrifice as the purification offering/expiation for sins, not as a payment of some sort. The purification offering finds its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures.

            ex·pi·ate [ek-spee-eyt] verb (used with object), ex·pi·at·ed, ex·pi·at·ing.
            to atone for; make amends or reparation for: to expiate one's crimes.

            When one "expiates" one's crimes, we say that person "paid their debt to society".

            Do they actually "write a check"?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              ex·pi·ate [ek-spee-eyt] verb (used with object), ex·pi·at·ed, ex·pi·at·ing.
              to atone for; make amends or reparation for: to expiate one's crimes.

              When one "expiates" one's crimes, we say that person "paid their debt to society".
              Right, it's common parlance in certain current Anglo dialects, but would it be anachronistic to apply it to the text?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Right, it's common parlance in certain current Anglo dialects, but would it be anachronistic to apply it to the text?
                SO MUCH of what we say about the Bible uses words like that --- that TODAY have meaning they didn't have back then, and in a different language. So, how is it better to use "expiate" than "paid a debt"?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  ex·pi·ate [ek-spee-eyt] verb (used with object), ex·pi·at·ed, ex·pi·at·ing.
                  to atone for; make amends or reparation for: to expiate one's crimes.

                  When one "expiates" one's crimes, we say that person "paid their debt to society".

                  Do they actually "write a check"?
                  I think the more literal meaning of at-one-ment is more meaningful. It would be interesting to look up some Middle English uses of the verbal/adverbial form atonen, where you already see the combination of the words 'at' + 'one'. Any Chaucer fans out there? Wycliffe already used the verb 'oneing' and the noun 'onement'. St Thomas More used 'atonement' long before Shakespeare, also with respect to Richard III.

                  This sense of atonement is closer to Paul's use of reconciliation language.

                  See footwasher's post for some context:

                  Originally posted by footwasher View Post
                  When Tyndale chose the word "atonement" (he didnt invent it as held by some) to represent what happened in the OT sacrificial ceremony, he walked in the footsteps of the writers of NT Scripture, who used words like sarx, Adonai, psyche etc., to convey Hebrew terms.

                  He was trying the convey the idea of kippur, the covering over of sins by the sprinkling of blood on the mercy seat. The sins were still there, God chose to ignore them, because of the blood.

                  Atonement as a term was already in use, to convey the act of making peace, by convincing the injured party to overlook the harm done to him, making at-one in the process:

                  For God was in Christ, and made agreement between the world and him self, and imputed not their sins unto them: and hath committed to us the preaching of the atonement (2 Cor 5:19, Tyndale)

                  And before Tyndale:

                  Shakespeare’s “Richard the Second,” written in 1597, Richard, failing to reconcile the two feuding noblemen, the Duke of Hereford and the Duke of Norfolk, orders them to fight a duel:

                  We were not born to sue, but to command:
                  Which since we cannot do to make you friends,
                  Be ready, as your lives shall answer it,
                  At Coventry, upon Saint Lambert’s day;
                  There shall your swords and lances arbitrate
                  The swelling difference of your settled hate:
                  Since we cannot atone you, we shall see
                  Justice design the victor’s chivalry.


                  ......

                  In “Richard the Third,” we find the Duke of Buckingham saying about Richard to the queen,

                  “Ay, madam: he desires to make atonement between the Duke of Gloucester and your brothers.”

                  What Buckingham is telling the queen is that Richard wishes to get her brothers and Gloucester to make up.
                  Last edited by robrecht; 05-03-2014, 10:49 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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I think the more literal meaning of at-one-ment is more meaningful. It would be interesting to look up some Middle English uses of the verbal/adverbial form atonen, where you already see the combination of the words 'at' + 'one'. Any Chaucer fans out there? Wycliffe already used the verb 'oneing' and the noun 'onement'. St Thomas More used 'atonement' long before Shakespeare, also with respect to Richard III.

                    This sense of atonement is closer to Paul's use of reconciliation language.
                    yeah, that
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      SO MUCH of what we say about the Bible uses words like that --- that TODAY have meaning they didn't have back then, and in a different language. So, how is it better to use "expiate" than "paid a debt"?
                      So we need to carefully delimit the semantic range of the English words we use, whether it be "Jesus is our friend", "personal relationship", "love" etc.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.
                        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.
                        Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                        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.
                        Of these texts, I do not believe Hebrews 9 and 10 are particularly promising toward establishing or substantiating any doctrine of penal satisfaction atonement (cf. message #31 above). For those interested in a very good overview of Hebrews' theology of atonement, see Steve Motyer's "The Atonement in Hebrews" in The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), ed. Derek Tidball et al., pp.136-149.
                        Last edited by The Remonstrant; 05-03-2014, 11:08 AM.
                        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          So we need to carefully delimit the semantic range of the English words we use, whether it be "Jesus is our friend", "personal relationship", "love" etc.
                          Why?
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            So we need to carefully delimit the semantic range of the English words we use, whether it be "Jesus is our friend", "personal relationship", "love" etc.
                            Seriously, I wonder if those who are involved in such analytics are AS involved in ministry.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Seriously, I wonder if those who are involved in such analytics are AS involved in ministry.
                              Well, surely in your ministry when you teach the congregation about the importance of "love", at times you would find it necessary to emphasise that agape love isn't about the emotion but about what you do? When you do so you are precisely delimiting the semantic range of "love".

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                Well, surely in your ministry when you teach the congregation about the importance of "love", at times you would find it necessary to emphasise that agape love isn't about the emotion but about what you do? When you do so you are precisely delimiting the semantic range of "love".
                                I'm more inclined to say "Mr Harper is still in the hospital, so how bout a bunch us grab our mowers and trimmers and take care of his property while praying for his recovery". I think teaching by DOING is more valuable than teaching by SAYING.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

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