articles and sermons :: the misunderstood cross - paul washer

Articles and Sermons :: The Misunderstood Cross - Paul Washer

The Misunderstood Cross - Paul Washer - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/16 16:36What follows is from a transcription of a spoken message by Paul Washer concerning the misunderstood cross. It might be of great use to many to pass on to those in their families that are foggy on the most basic meaning of Christ's death. I'd like to see a condensed version of this in a gospel tract or pamphlet. The want of a clear and sound grasp of the gospel, as quickened by the Spirit (who must kill in order to make alive), is not only the cause of the falseness of apostate Christendom; it is the principal cause of weakness and doubt among the wheat. Deficiency here guarantees deficiency everywhere else. Reggie ===============================

Today we are going to look at ... it was actually prompted yesterday while I was working on the yard I was also listening to a preacher on the radio. And it struck my attention that when he began the sermon he says: "I'm going to tell you about the meaning of the Cross." And I was surprised that he spent a lot of time talking about the Cross of Jesus Christ, but did not put the emphasis on where the emphasis was, and did not truly explain the meaning of the cross. And he did something that is so common today. Let me give you just a little bit of background.

As you know I have said this before: Wisdom was not born with any one nor it will die with anyone. Now If I stand up here today and I say that the church at large is basically missing the point about the gospel of Jesus Christ you can look at me and say: "Who are you? Are you Billy Graham? Are you this guy or that guy? How or what gives you the right to stand here and say: Â“The church at large is missing the point?" Well, here's the point. History gives me that right.

You see, one of the things that you have to understand is this: There is a difference between a theologian and a pop-theologian. Did you ever hear of pop music? ItÂ’s the music that is popular, music that is given to the populists, itÂ’s the music of the day; it kind of jumps up. It doesn't typically last very long and one of the reasons is that it is pretty superficial. You know like.....Sonny and Cher. Â“I would die for you; I will even climb a mountain for you!"

I never could figure out how climbing a mountain was more than dying for someone. But pop music is very superficial. Also there is what we called pop-theology, which is very superficial. Theology is the study of God and there is a lot of whatwe call pop-theologians on the radio. They are not truly trained theologians, they just have a following. They haven't givethemselves to study, they give themselves more to preaching. And their preaching deals more with illustrations, and stories, and antidotes, and cute little sayings, but as far as the theology, NO!

Now whenever someone comes to you and says like I said this morning: "The church by large has missed the point with regard to the Cross" the first thing that you have to ask then, is this: "Why do you say that?" The answer better be this: "Not only because I have found these things in the Bible but because history backs me up."

You see, if you say for example: "I believe a certain thing."

If you stick Benny Hinn here and me right here, and if you can pull both of us apart and if you ask Benny Hinn why he believes that all the stuff he does and the fact that he makes millions of dollars and that he will only stay in five star hotels and all such things. If you ask him why he does that, he will tell you: "Because that is what the Bible teaches." And if you ask me, I will say: "He is completely wrong!" And if you ask me why, I will say, "Because this is what the Bible teaches". Now the question is, both of us are using the Bible as our authority, so who is right? You know that is the big question, who is right? Well there are two things that you need to look at. One of them is called context, and the other is called histo

/35


ry.

First of all I want you to understand something. If the Bible says, or if I make a statement the barn is red, it means the barn is red. I'm so tired of speaking on university campuses and hearing students say: "Oh, that's just your interpretation." And I say: "Well here interpret it grammatically, not according to the Spirit, just grammatically, like you would in an English class. What is it saying grammatically?" That's the first one.

The second point is this. We have 2000 years of Christian history. Ok? 2000 years of Christian's writing thousands, no millions of books. Now, if I teach something on the Cross and you compare what I teach to 2000 years of Christian history,and you don't find it anywhere in 2000 years of Christian history, then you've got to decide who is right? 2000 years of Christian theologians and writers or Paul Washer? Well obviously 2000 years of Christian history and teachers are right.

Whenever someone teaches you something one of the good things to do is to compare what they are saying to 2000 years of Christian history. If nobody agrees with them, they are probably wrong, aren't they? And if we as Americans comeup with some new theology, or a new way of doing Christianity, yet it disagrees with 2000 years worth of Christians form all over the world. Who's probably wrong? We are! You see, and so that's why I say today, that on the teaching of the Cross most of the people are completely missing the point.

And here, when we hear a teaching on the Cross, and when someone preaches about the suffering of Jesus, what is it that you usually hear about? Physical suffering, right? Isn't that what? And I mean the preacher - and we need to talk about physical suffering. But the preacher will talk about physical suffering, and what will happen? Then he will start crying, and everybody in the congregation starts crying.

He talks about how the nails went through a certain part of the wrist, because that was the only thing that would hold up a man, and how the nail went through both the feet in a certain place. And then, in order to keep alive the person would have to push upon the nail in order to take a breath. Because when you died of crucifixion you died of suffocation.

They'll talk about the spear in the side; they'll talk about the crown of thorns on the head, they'll talk about all these kindsof things, the beating with the whip, how he drug his cross and the blood is flowing down and everything else. And then they'll tell you: "By this we are saved". Now, that draws you to a certain conclusion. How is it that the physical sufferings of Jesus, caused by men, somehow paid for our sins? It doesn't work out theologically. Are we actually to believe that our sins are paid for because the Romans and Jews rejected Jesus? Are our sins paid for because they whipped him and beat him?

I was in German Mennonite camp, a bible camp, in northern, actually in the mountains, the Alps in Romania. And I walked to their theological, they had a theological library, and I walked in there and I saw a thing on the Cross of Christ. So I pull it out, and praise the Lord! It was not in German. The only book in there I think that was not in German. And I startedlooking through it, and this is what the man said: "God sent His son who lived a perfect life..." Now this is a theologian! "God sent His son who lived a perfect life and then according to the plan of God, men rejected him, they beat Him, they crucified Him, they mocked Him, they put crown of thorns on his head, they stuck a spear in his side, and all these different things. And God looked at that suffering, which Jesus suffered, at the hands of men and He considered that to be payment for all our sins against Him.

/35


Now, a lot of people say: "Well yeah, that sounds good!"

Actually, historically that's a heresy! It is the deepest form of heresy. I mean you could be wrong about a lot of things, butif you are wrong about the Cross, you are in trouble. Now here's what I want you to do. I want you to put 2 things together. How is it, what happened on that Cross that would cause God to forgive us of our sins? Now, the first question though is this. Why does the Son of God, God in the flesh, why is it necessary that He die? Why can't God just forgive everybody? Have you ever thought about that?

Why can't He just forgive? I mean, we are called to forgive people aren't we? If you sin against me, I'm called to forgive you. I'm not called to require a sacrifice or anything. I'm just told to forgive you. So why can't God simply forgive? That's the first question you need to answer. And I will show you a verse. I want us to go to Proverbs. I am going to condense about a week worth of lectures into 1 thing, so I just want to go to 1 text. Go to Proverbs 17:15. Now look what it says: "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike, are an abomination to the Lord." Now let us just consider this one phrase: "He who justifies the wicked is an abomination to the Lord".

Now we are in a big problem. Most of the songs we sing today are going to be about God justifying the wicked. That's what we sing about all the time. "Man, God justifies us, even though we were sinners! God declared us to be right." That's what the justification means. God declared you to be right before Him. And you praise God for that. But there's a big problem here. Do you see what it is? God says that anyone who declares the wicked to be right, when they are not right, they are an abomination before Him. So if

God declared you to be right when you were not right, it's an abomination. By such an act of injustice, God would be making Himself an abomination. If God forgives the wicked, He Himself becomes an abomination. In a same way if a judge forgives a murderer and lets him go, he's no longer a Just Judge.

It's so amazing to me how so many people - I speak at the university, the students are just furious because I say that God throws men in Hell. They are furious when I say that. But do you know what bothers Heaven? Heaven has a problem with what God has done. Heaven's problem is this. If God is a just God He cannot forgive. He must punish the wicked. That is the thing that occupies the whole Bible.

Have you ever wondered why God required all the animals to die in the Old Testament? It's a symbol, and a type. But the whole point is that if the sinner sins, he must die. He must die. And if God justifies someone who is wicked; if he declares a wicked person to be innocent, then God is an abomination. God has become wicked.

Now we are beginning to see why it was necessary for God - the Son to die. God cannot simply forgive. The law, the righteous law, demands that the sinner die. Demands it! You just can't push that away. You just can't say ok, well, we are going to let them slide this time. If God does that, He is unjust; He is wrong; He is sinful; He becomes just like the devil, and the devil's accusations against Him now become correct. Can you imagine devil's standing before God, saying? "HeyGod, remember when we sinned against you? You were just then, weren't you? You cast us all out of Heaven, Yeah, where's your justice now God? Huh? Where is it? This man, this ball of dirt sins against you, and you let him go. Guess what God, youÂ’ve become like me. Congratulations!"

You see the problem? That's the problem. Now the only way that God can forgive sinful men is if God who made the lawand God who demands satisfaction, if He Himself comes down and pays the penalty. That's why the doctrine of the Jehovah-witnesses is so blasphemous. Look what they are saying. They are saying that when the world fell, God created an i

/35


nnocent being, the Son. He Â‘createdÂ’ Him. And then took this innocent being, independent from God, and put Him on a Cross, to die, to fix the problem.

That's not what happened. The Son of God is not a created being; He is God. You see, the only way the law of God can be satisfied is by God. And you can use this against the Jehovah-witnesses. If Jesus is not God, then everybody is going to Hell, because what was done on that Cross is not enough. God made the law; it is Â‘GodÂ’ who has to satisfy it. It has to be God.

If Jehovah-witness comes to the door and says that Jesus wasn't God, just sit down and just start weeping. He'll say: "Why are you crying for?" "We are all going to Hell." "Why?" "Because only God can satisfy God's law. Only He can pay theprice. And if Jesus is not God then we are going to Hell. Me and you, and the rest of us." But you see, God in order to forgive the wicked, and still be Just, He must die in the wicked's place. ThatÂ’s the only way He can forgive is to die in the place of the wicked.

Now here's comes the important point. How does He die? What is it about the death of the Son of God that leads to our forgiveness? How does His death satisfy the law? Now, here is something I want you to understand. When someone says they have been saved,- now I'd never do this to a young Christian or, but if they are a seminary students or something they are going to get this, if they say "I've been saved, " and I go "From what? From what have you been saved?" People usually say "Sin!" " Nope! ... Nope!"

They say: "What do you mean "Nope"?" "Sin wasn't after you. Sin wasn't going to throw you in Hell. You have sinned, but the sin caused something else. Sin isn't going to throw you in Hell! Sin is not even a person! It's not a living being that'sgoing to judge you, and grab you and throw you in Hell. From what have you been saved? This is going to really rock your boat. I'll tell you from what you have been saved.

From what you have been saved is not 'What,' it is 'Who.' You have been saved from God! You see here's what you need to understand. God is the judge of the entire Universe. You have sinned, since you have sinned and made yourself an enemy of God before the just judge, when you stand before Him, He will throw you in Hell!"

Now I hear a lot of people say: "God doesn't throw anybody in Hell.Â” Well that's really nice if you write it on the back of a Christian T-shirt, sing it in a contemporary Christian song, but it is not in the Bible. Jesus said: "You do not be afraid of man who can kill your body, but be afraid of God who can kill your body and throw you in Hell." You see? Again this Godof ours is not very politically correct. He is not a tamed lion. People, have you ever heard this statement? We see it in Romans 5. We also see it in Romans 1: "enemy of God," and "hater of God." Have you ever heard that word "enemy of God?" Do you know what the problem is?

Contemporary Christianity interprets it differently from the historical Christianity. You will hear preachers say: "When the Bible says that we were an enemy of God, it means that WE were an enemy against God, that WE were rebellion against God, that WE were against God. But it doesn't mean that God was against us, that God was our enemy." And than they will usually say something like this: "It's like you are holding a gun against God, and God wants you to put that gun down, and then you'll be friends." That's not true! All throughout historical Christianity when it says "enemies of God," you know what it really means? Not only were you God's enemy, holding your gun on Him, God was your enemy holding His gun on you.

/35


You put your gun down, fine! He still has His gun on you. You are a criminal, you broke the law, you deserve to die, you can put your gun down to surrender if you want, but you are still going to hell. Because not only you are his enemy, but He is yours. God says things in the Bible like: "I will hate them." "I will come against them." "I will fight against them." "I'll raise up a standard." Again this God of 21st century Christianity is a lot a different from the biblical one, and a lot different than one that has been preached throughout 2000 years of Christian history. So you see, not only were you making yourself an enemy against God, God was your enemy. And then one from home you need to be saved is God because He is coming, remember what Amos has said: "Be prepared to meet thy God." Remember what Revelation says and talks about:

"He is coming and the captains and the great man of the world will cry out for the rocks to fall upon them to hide them from the wrath of the lamb."

He is not coming back with his hand like going: "Oh, I just want to save you but now you have to go to hell." No! He is coming back, it says: "sword of the Spirit." I mean everything else is going on here. He is coming back and He is going to fight somebody. Because He is mad! Now, the problem that you have to see. There is punishment. We have broken God's law, so now we deserve to be punished. From where does that punishment come? Ask yourself that question. From where does that punishment come?

We have grown up under preaching that tells us, well if you sin, you know some bad thing happens to you, that's not God that's just the consequences of sin just like the law of gravity, you jump off the roof you gonna get hurt, you sin you gonna get hurt. It is not God's doing that's just the way that the things are. That's not true. God talks about coming and judgment all the time against people's sin. He does, just read the Bible. All the time! "I will come against you," Â“I will set my face against you." OK? So we realize that we have been saved from God and his punishment.

So how is that punishment to be done away with? When Jesus the Son of God was dying on the cross it is not the spears of Romans, or the crowns of thorns, or the nails in His hands that save you. It is not that that pays for the crime. The suffering that the man heaped upon Jesus, God does not look at it and say

"OK, good enough!"

That's not what paid for your sin! What paid for your sin? Look in Isaiah 53. This is what paid for your sin: Isaiah 53:10 "But the Lord was pleased to crush Him." Now, you've all read 53 and you've heard gazillions of sermons on the radio and everything about Isaiah 53. But isn't it funny that when you hear sermons on Isaiah 53 it is always verses 3, 4, 5 and 6 talking about the sufferings heaped upon Christ by men. But very rarely do you hear Isaiah 53:10 "It pleased the Lord".

Who's the Lord? The word here is not Adonai, its Yahweh, or as some of you may pronounce it Jehovah. I mean its God.

"It pleased God to..." Â“What? Crush Him?" This is the Messiah.

"It pleased the Lord to crush Him." This word crush, it refers to like... The best illustration I can give you is, imagine... Do you know what a mill stone is? A mill stone was a big stone, usually about this big, round, maybe about that tall; I mean a huge stone. And then they placed another stone on top of that, which actually rotated. OK? It turned. And what you would do _ as you can imagine you put grain, corn and everything, in between those two stones and when they may their way through there, that stone would ground them to powder. That's the terminology being used here. That is what it refersto. It pleased God the Father to crush His own Son and to ground Him into powder.

/35


Now another illustration would be this. Imagine you are standing at the foot of a dam, that's a thousand miles high and a thousand miles wide. And you are standing right there at the foot of this thing and it is filled with water. And in 1 second the wall is pulled out away. What do you think it is going to happen to you? It means its over. Your body is never going tobe found. Or imagine you are walking one day, and a star 6 thousand times larger that the sun crashes the Earth right on your head.

What are we talking about here? How is it that the cross saves you? It's because on the cross all the sin that God hates.... You know youÂ’ve heard someone say that the love of God is so great that you cannot describe it and that if you were to even get a glimpse of how great it is it will drive you mad. It is so great that it will literally drive you mad. And the only way you're ever going to be able to know more of the love of God is if God supernaturally strengthens you and glorifies your body because standing in His presence and to know His love would be too much joy for you that you will explode. I mean you just wonÂ’t be able to handle it; you'll go mad. Well, in the same way God hatred is so great it goes beyond description, so that if you were to even catch a glimpse of it, it would indeed drive you mad. It would be like a little wax figure this tall that has a nuclear bomb explode 3 inches away from it. You have no idea.

The sin that evokes God's hatred, and I mean that word 'hatred', OK? God hates! The sin that evokes God's hatred was placed on His son. Now, you take all of the sins of God's people, from the first man ever saved on the face of the earth, to the last person ever saved on the face of the earth. All of God's people, all of their sin, placed on the Son. All of God's justice, just punishment, but also all of Gods just hatred, His just loathing, everything that should be poured out on these sinful creatures throughout eternity, God throws down on His only begotten Son and crushes Him under the weight of His own justice.

You say: "Brother Paul could you kill your son for me?" "I'm sorry." You can argue theologically whether I should or I shouldn't - I couldn't. And I'm evil. The Bible says, Â“If you being evil can give good gifts to your children, if you being evil can love your children ....Â” Now here's God, perfect love manifested towards a perfect son, who never did anything but bless His Father and crushes Him under the weight of His holy hatred.

When those preachers, you know the cup, you know, Jesus says let this cup pass from me and they say: "Yes, going to the cross He didn't want to go the cross" No! They are wrong, and yes they are right; they just don't know what they are saying. Listen to me, there have been martyrs who have gone, followers of Jesus Christ who have been burned as a steak and while they were burning they have lifted their hands and praised the Lord. Ok? Now let me ask you this question.Do you think they are greater than our Lord Jesus?

There have been Christians... I have a picture in my office. I keep it right in front of my desk, a huge picture of all these Christians crucified in a Roman theater, and they have been burned after they have been crucified, and lions have been set free on others. I keep that in front of me all the time to remind myself that this is still happening today. And there were many of those who were crucified and sang out with joy as they were pounding the nails. Do you think that they are greater than Jesus? Do you think Jesus would actually cower, and fret, and cry under a punishment that even some of Hisfollowers were able to endure with joy? Do you think Jesus is weaker than them?

What you need to understand is when Jesus was in that garden, when He said, "Save me from this hour." "Let this cup pass from me." He wasn't thinking about the nails in His hands. He wasn't thinking about a wooden cross or a spear in hisside, or Romans, or anything else. What He was thinking about is this: "Father, I have never been out of your bosom. I have always been in the most perfect, wonderful, beautiful relationship with You. I have all throughout the eternity." God did not create this world because He needed something, because God was always content with His son. You take everyb

/35


ody in this world and throw them straight into the Hell, God will still be happy because He's got His Son. I don't want to offend your humanism, but that's just the way it is.

God's perfectly happy. He did this; He created us, not because of His need but because of the overflow of His abundance. And here His son is separated from Him. I remember after my little boy was born and I had a monitor up there in his room and I was outside and had the other monitor just right within the door... working up on a ladder, probably about 15 feet in the air, and nailing some things.... and he cried ...

I didn't even think, I threw the hammer and leaped. I went right off the ladder. I hit the ground running. I was a new father, but I still do the same thing today. I mean, hit the ground running. If we being evil could love our children and here is the Son, thinking: "I'm going to be ripped out of the heart of the Father, the Father is going to turn His face away from me."Now you may think: "Oh yes, he turned His face away because he didn't want to see His son suffering."

No, you've got it all wrong. He turned his face away because His Son had become detestable! His son had become sin. All of you who are fathers and those who are mothers know. I mean, after your kid gets to a certain age, he does something and its: "Is dad looking, is mom looking?" I mean he can't do anything unless mom and dad are looking. I can be worshiping and he grabs my face and goes like this. The Father turns his face away and says:

"No!" He became the abominable thing, an abomination.

You and I are an abomination before God in order for us to be forgiven God has to die as an abomination in our place. You and I deserve to be crushed under God's wrath. In order for God to save us and forgive us He was crashed under Hisown wrath. That's what the Cross is! That's what it means! And now you can to see why, if you ever have a heavenly vision of truly what happened on that Cross, it will affect you for the rest of your life. You'll become a prisoner to that thing. You won't be able to get away from it.

Let me give you an idea. I used that illustration. I love to use it because of the shock value of it, because it makes the people so mad. A kid said one time: "Well, when I go to hell..." He was taking joy in the fact that if he went into Hell, at leastthere will be people on the outside who would be suffering because they loved him so much, and knew he was going to hell. You know that mentality? "Well I will hurt myself, and it will hurt everybody else who loves me?" I noticed this tendency in him, and I said...

"Young man, let me just give you an idea of what is going to happen on the day that you stand before God." He said: "OK, I'm not afraid"

I said: "You will be!" I said: "This is what's going to happen. The moment you stand before God, everything that your parents loved about you, it wasn't you, did you know that? It was the common grace of God on you. That's what caused them to love you. Now, at the moment He declares your judgment, that grace is gonna be pulled off of you. And what your parents are going to see is a seething monster that would make a Hitler looked like a choir boy.

And do you wanna know something?" I said "when you take your first step into hell, the last thing you are going to hear is all of creation, along with your parents, standing up and applauding and worshiping God, because God has rid the earth of you. So don't think that anybody is going to be mourning up here in heaven and some how youÂ’re going to have vengeance on at least somebody as you suffer there in hell. You will find no satisfaction there!"

He said: "That's horrible!" I said: "More horrible than you can ever imagine, repent and believe. Flee from the wrath to co

/35


me." I was speaking at the university last week and some students were in invisible protest against me. They came in, sat down on the front rows, cross their arms, pull their hats all down, and pretended to be sleeping, and this was their big protest, I guess.

I just walked over to the corner and I said: "Listen... listen." and I began to tell them about Hell. And I said, "Now I will give each of you a quarter so you can go back to your room and call your mom and tell her that all of you are going to hell. And she needs to prey for your soul." Sometimes in the universities, the biggest argument they use against me is: "A loving Jesus would never send anyone to hell." Do you want to know something? If it were not for the loving Jesus, we wouldn't even have the doctrine of Hell. Do you know that?

You look in the Old Testament you can hardly find it. Oh, itÂ’s there, but there are comparatively few passages in the whole Old Testament about Hell.

You look in the writings of Paul; there is almost nothing about Hell. Really! Do you know where almost everything we know about Hell comes from? From Jesus! Really! Almost everything we know about Hell comes from Him. The loving Jesus who died to save men spoke more about Hell than everybody else in the entire Bible put together. Why?

I think that there is one reason. This is just my opinion. Hell is so horrible that man cannot even comprehend it. So the only one who can truly comprehend how horrible hell is - is God Himself, since only God is able to communicate the horrible nature of hell in any way.

So remember now when you hear about Jesus dying for you, you know now, that it is more than some whips. Those whips were nothing. I don't want to depreciate His physical suffering. But, folks, the cross is about the son of God being crushed by His own Father. And when he cried out: "It is finished!" That meant PAID IN FULL!

Do you know why God can never pour out his wrath on you, if you are Christian? He can never, never pour out his wrathon you. Never! His judgment, His wrath, can never be poured out on you. Never! It is impossible! He can't do it! He can only act toward you now with the greatest of love, the same love with which He loved His dearly begotten son. ThatÂ’s the love that youÂ’re loved with. He cannot love you with anything less. Do you want to know why He cannot pour His wrath out on you? I'll tell you why. It is because His son drank it. It doesn't exist anymore. It is gone! He drank it. There is nothing left for you.

There is no more punishment for you if you are a Christian. But if you are not a Christian, oh, dear friend, you don't even want to know, you don't even want to know what awaits you.

LetÂ’s pray. Father, we thank You for this day. We ask Lord, your blessing and your help. And Dear God help us to appreciate what You have done for us in giving your Son, not an angel did You give us, not gold, not a piece of the throne that You throw away, but You gave us your only begotten son. And for that we will worship You throughout all eternity. That we have an older brother, and He is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters, because He has died for us. He's taken away our sin, and He's given us his own righteousness.

In Jesus Name.

/35


AMEN

Re: The Misunderstood Cross - Paul Washer - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/16 22:56Bump

Re: - posted by MaryJane, on: 2009/10/16 23:39Greetings

Is there an audio version of this teaching? If so would you mind sharing the link.Thank you. I have read it. It is so good, thank you for sharing it with us. I wanted to share this with my older sister, but she has a hard time reading because some problems with her vision.

God Blessmaryjane

Re: - posted by IWantAnguish (), on: 2009/10/17 0:02Think I've listened to this sermon before.

(https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid12885) Here's the sermon...

Re: - posted by bible4life (), on: 2009/10/19 13:00this called the meaning of the cross, not too many preach on the cross like this.

Re: , on: 2009/10/19 13:50There are so many problems with this view of the atonement. These are some of the problems I have with penal substitution, which is why I believe in governmental atonement:

1. The atonement changes sinners, not God. The atonement does not change God.

2. God gave the atonement because of His love, not because He needed His anger satisfied. Mercy is an attribute of God, which means He can turn from His anger. The atonement makes it possible for God to turn from His anger, but the death of the innocent can never satisfy His anger against the wicked.

3. The atonement was made for everyone (but not everyone is saved). But if the debt of everyone is paid, everyone is saved! If God's wrath for everyone is satisfied, nobody is under God's wrath!

4. God still has wrath after the atonement. Nobody is saved from God's wrath until conversion. The only sinner, that we know of, that was saved from God's wrath at Calvary was the dying thief. The rest of us were saved from God's wrath, notat Calvary, but at conversion.

5. Forgiveness is when God sets aside His wrath. The Bible says God forgives us our debt and remits our penalty.

6. Our punishment or penalty was not a cross but was eternal hell. The atonement was not our punishment or our penalty, but it was a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty could be remitted. The atonement accomplishes what the punishment of our sins would have accomplished, therefore our sins can be forgiven.

7. Retributive justice requires the death of the soul that sinned, Jesus never sinned, therefore His death could not satisfy"retributive" justice. (But the death of the innocent can satisfy public justice).

8. It is not that God is unforgiving and therefore must punish every sin, or that God is just so angry that he must pour his wrath out on somebody, but that God is the Ruler of the Universe and cannot pardon criminals in a way that would weaken or dishonor his law.

/35


The are many other problems with the atonement view Washer holds to. But this is just a few off the top of my head. I think that Jonathon Edwards Jr was a Calvinist that God the atonement right! Others who got the atonement right were Albert Barnes and Charles Finney. Also Moses Stuart and Nathan Beman. Harry Conn and Gordon Olson also had some great teachings on the topic.

Re: - posted by IWantAnguish (), on: 2009/10/19 14:20Scripture would be good for those of us that would like to compare and contrast your view with Paul Washer's.

Re: - posted by Leo_Grace, on: 2009/10/19 14:38Dear truefaithsav,

Quote:-------------------------truefaithsav wrote:There are so many problems with this view of the atonement. These are some of the problems I have with penal substitution, which is why I believe in governmental atonement:

1. The atonement changes sinners, not God. The atonement does not change God.

2. God gave the atonement because of His love, not because He needed His anger satisfied. Mercy is an attribute of God, which means He can turn from His anger. The atonement makes it possible for God to turn from His anger, but the death of the innocent can never satisfy His anger against the wicked.

3. The atonement was made for everyone (but not everyone is saved). But if the debt of everyone is paid, everyone is saved! If God's wrath for everyone is satisfied, nobody is under God's wrath!

4. God still has wrath after the atonement. Nobody is saved from God's wrath until conversion. The only sinner, that we know of, that was saved from God's wrath at Calvary was the dying thief. The rest of us were saved from God's wrath, not at Calvary, but at conversion.

5. Forgiveness is when God sets aside His wrath. The Bible says God forgives us our debt and remits our penalty.

6. Our punishment or penalty was not a cross but was eternal hell. The atonement was not our punishment or our penalty, but it was a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty could be remitted. The atonement accomplishes what the punishment of our sins would have accomplished, therefore our sins can be forgiven.

7. Retributive justice requires the death of the soul that sinned, Jesus never sinned, therefore His death could not satisfy "retributive" justice. (But the death of the innocent can satisfy public justice).

8. It is not that God is unforgiving and therefore must punish every sin, or that God is just so angry that he must pour his wrath out on somebody, but that God is the Ruler of the Universe and cannot pardon criminals in a way that would weaken or dishonor his law.

The are many other problems with the atonement view Washer holds to. But this is just a few off the top of my head. I think that Jonathon Edwards Jr was a Calvinist that God the atonement right! Others who got the atonement right were Albert Barnes and Charles Finney. Also Moses Stuart and Nathan Beman. Harry Conn and Gordon Olson also had some great teachings on the topic.

-------------------------

I can't help but notice that you are playing on semantics and nitpicking on non-essentials. When you read a message with an attitude to criticize rather than to learn, you often miss the treasure within. I find his message solidly scriptural and quite edifying.

In Christ,Leo

/35


Re: - posted by tjservant (), on: 2009/10/19 15:04

Quote:-------------------------...not too many preach on the cross like this.-------------------------

True...and very sad. Many today teach a perverted understanding of the atonement that is not found in scripture. Paul Washer does not preach a "watered down" gospel...or atonement. This is an excellent teaching.

Re: , on: 2009/10/19 16:17

Quote:-------------------------Scripture would be good for those of us that would like to compare and contrast your view with Paul Washer's.-------------------------

The purpose of law: to promote well-being. See Deut. 10:13

The penalty of the law: the eternal hell of the guilty (not physical death or else even Christians aren't saved; and not the death of the innocent) See Eze. 18:20; Rom. 6:23; 2 Thes. 1:9; Rev 21:8

The object of penalty: to discourage crime and thereby promote the well being of all. (not to satisfy any vindictiveness in God, since God does not delight in the death of the wicked) See 2 Peter 2:6

Forgiveness or mercy: the setting aside or remission of penalty (it is not the payment of a debt, the satisfaction of wrath, or the execution of penalty. These are the opposite of forgiveness or mercy)See Ps 78:38, Ps 85:23, Micah 7:18; Matt6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42

Problem of forgiveness: it encourages crime and thus endangers everyone (it is not that God was unwilling, unforgiving, or unmerciful) See Ecc. 8:11, Eze. 18:32

Atonement: a substitute for the penalty (not the penalty itself) which makes our penalty remissable. See Matt. 26:28; Heb 9:22

Necessity of atonement: to fulfill or satisfy the purpose of penalty (public justice), to make it safe for God to pardon criminals without endangering the rest of His subjects by encouraging others to break His law. God must maintain His law throughout His universe by expressing His regard for it, either by punishing the guilty or through the atonement of Christ. (Not that God needed any personal satisfaction, but that God had a governmental problem - the purpose of penalty needed satisfaction). See Romans 3:25-26

Â“The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as thepunishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose. In other words, there are certain ends proposed by the appointment of the penalty in case of violation of the law; and if these ends are secured, then the punishment may be remitted and the offender may be pardoned. That which will secure these ends is anatonement.Â” Albert Barnes

Â“The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same endsof supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; thatit shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The veryidea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law. That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon.Â” Jonathon Edwards Jr.

/35


"the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners" Charles G. Finney

Re: , on: 2009/10/19 16:251.Christ suffered and died for our sins (Isa. 53:5; 1 Peter 3:18). Punishment implies sin and guilt. Sacrifice implies the sin and guilt of another. Jesus Christ was sacrificed for our sins.

2.The law demanded the eternal death of the guilty (Eze. 18:20; Prov. 17:15, 26; 2 Thes. 1:9) and therefore the atonement could not have satisfied the demands of the law. The atonement rather satisfied the purpose of penalty, it honored the law as equally as the penalty would have.

3.The penalty for our sins is eternal hell (2 Thes. 1:9)

4.Jesus did not suffer eternal hell, He suffered six hours on a cross.

5.Therefore Jesus suffered a substitute for our penalty, not the penalty itself.

6.Jesus said that the disciples would drink the same cup that he drank (Mark 10:38-39), therefore Jesus did not drink the cup of GodÂ’s wrath. The cup of GodÂ’s wrath is still full after the atonement (Rev. 16:19).

7.God still has wrath after the atonement (Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 2:5; Rom. 2:8-9; Col. 3:6; Rev. 6:17; Rev. 14:10, Rev. 14:19, Rev. 15:7; Rev. 16:1) and therefore the atonement did not satisfy GodÂ’s wrath.

8.Nobody is saved from GodÂ’s wrath until they forsake their sins (Isaiah 55:7; Jer. 26:13; Prov. 28:13; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22).

9.The atonement is a substitute for our penalty (Heb. 9:22), so that God could remit our penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25) without dishonoring or weakening His law.

10.Forgiveness is the remission of penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22). Forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 85:2-3; Micah 7:18). But if Jesus took our penalty and satisfied GodÂ’s wrath, there could be no real forgiveness. The atonement makes it possible for our penalty to be remitted, it makes it possible for God to turn away from His wrath when sinners repent.

Re: - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/19 16:53Is this just going to become a spam fest?

Re: - posted by hmmhmm (), on: 2009/10/19 17:01

Quote:-------------------------KingJimmy wrote:Is this just going to become a spam feast? -------------------------

the cross is foolishness to them that perish.....

FOOL'ISHNESS, n.

1. Folly; want of understanding.

2. Foolish practice; want of wisdom or good judgment.

/35


3. In a scriptural sense, absurdity; folly.

Re: - posted by Leo_Grace, on: 2009/10/19 17:142Ti 2:14-16 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of novalue, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

Semantics and nitpicking is to be avoided. When people start explaining God as if they understood Him totally, when they begin defining what He can and cannot do based on their own limited understanding, using mere philosophical terms and words, employing selected Scripture and not the entire Word to justify their empty ideas, I turn away.

Re: , on: 2009/10/19 17:26Sorry guys. I thought doctrine mattered. I guess some preachers are above the test of sound doctrine. It is a scary thing when people don't want their precious doctrines, which they inherited from the traditions of men, to be compared with the Word of God. Let's just blindly believe whatever a popular preacher says, so long as he says it with passion. Even passionate popular preachers can be mistaken. Paul Washer is not above the test of Scripture.


Quote:-------------------------It is a scary thing when people don't want their precious doctrines, which they inherited from the traditions of men, to be compared with the Word of God.-------------------------

Funny.

Folks on both sides toss the old, "which they inherited from the traditions of men" phrase out there.

Both sides claim they have compared their beliefs to the scriptures.

Both sides have fasted and prayed for God to reveal His truth in these matters.

The fact is, folks just disagree. Many on this site hold degrees in theology. Many have graduated from Bible College. Many Pastor and teach at churches. Many have simply read the Bible faithfully for 10, 20, 30, 40 ... years or more. And many of them disagree.

Paul Washer claims his doctrines are from the Holy Bible alone and historically accurate to boot.

So does Finney.

Many people on this site are simply tired of the scripture volley that inevitably takes place in posts like this. Search the SIarchives. It has been done before.

Does doctrine matter? Sure, but I doubt posting every single scripture that has historically been leveled against your view of the atonement will change your mind.

/35


Re: - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/19 21:07

Quote:-------------------------1. The atonement changes sinners, not God. The atonement does not change God.

-------------------------

Atonement changes the relationship between the two parties. Prior to sins being atoned for, God seeks retribution against the sinner. When man in his sins are dealt with through the applied blood of Christ, God no longer seeks retribution.

Quote:-------------------------6. Our punishment or penalty was not a cross but was eternal hell. The atonement was not our punishment or our penalty, but it was a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty could be remitted. The atonement accomplishes what the punishment of our sins would have accomplished, therefore our sins can be forgiven.

-------------------------

Isaiah 53:8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

He received the stroke (punishment/penalty) that was due to us.

Quote:-------------------------7. Retributive justice requires the death of the soul that sinned, Jesus never sinned, therefore His death could not satisfy "retributive" justice. (But the death of the innocent can satisfy public justice).

-------------------------

Isaiah 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.

God sees the death of Jesus Christ as the thing that satisfies.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 0:15

Quote:-------------------------Prior to sins being atoned for, God seeks retribution against the sinner.-------------------------

If God was seeking retribution before the atonement, He never would have made the atonement, He never would have sent His Son.

God was seeking mercy before the atonement, that is why He made the atonement, that is why He sent His Son.

God prefers mercy over retribution. If God sought retribution, He would have simply punished sinners and provided no way for sinners to escape punishment. But since God provided a way for sinners to escape punishment, God must prefer mercy over retribution.

God was just as loving and merciful before the atonement as He was after the atonement, but the atonement made a way for God to express His love and mercy to the sinner without dishonoring or weakening His law.

The atonement did not change God. God is the same yesterday today and forever. God was merciful before the atonem

/35


ent and God is merciful after the atonement. God has wrath before the atonement and God has wrath after the atonement. The atonement is a means, through which, God can express His mercy and set aside His wrath.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 0:20I really like this:

THE PROBLEM OF FORGIVENESS

The problems that need to be overcome are governmental, not personal. Just as the situation of the king and Daniel (Dan. 6:7-16), God does not have any vindictiveness or sadistic desire that needs to be gratified or satisfied (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God is already wanting to forgive (Ps. 86:5), He is already willing to pardon (Neh. 9:17), whenever it is safe for all for Him to do so (2 Pet. 3:9). God personally prefers mercy over judgment (Isa. 28:21; Micah 7:18; Jn. 8:10-11; Jas. 2:13). He is reluctant to execute judgment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; 2 Pet. 3:9).

The problems of forgiveness arise from the government of God and not the person of God, from God as a Ruler and not as an offended individual. The person of God did not need a bloody sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22; Ps. 51:16-17; Prov. 21:3; Hos. 6:6; Matt. 9:13; 12:7). The reason the atonement was given in the first place was because God already had a disposition of love and mercy (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8). It is not that Calvary gave us love and mercy, but that love and mercy gave us Calvary. The atonement allows God, who holds the Office of Universal Ruler or King, to set aside His governmental wrath and extend gracious pardon to offenders, without compromising His government or abrogated His laws.

WHO IS CHANGED MY THE ATONEMENT?

The atonement changes man, not God (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 1:21; Jn. 1:29; Acts 3:26; Rom. 2:4 (with Rom. 5:8); 2 Cor. 5:15; Eph. 5:25-27; Col 1:21-23; Titus 2:11-12, 14; Heb. 9:26; 10:10; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 Jn. 1:7; 3:5; 3:8; 4:19). The atonement does not change God from being stern, severe, and angry, to being mild, forgiving, and kind. God was merciful, loving, and forgiving before the atonement was made (Ps. 86:5; Neh. 9:17; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13) which is why He gave us the atonement in the first place (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 1 Jn 4:10). God did not have to be reconciled unto man, but man had to be reconciled unto God (Rom. 5:10-11; 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20-22), man needed to change, not God. So the atonement changes man, not God.

God is the same after the atonement as He was before the atonement (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jas 1:17). It was not that theFather wanted to punish men, seeking personal vengeance, so the Son stepped in to shed His own blood to satisfy the Fathers personal vindictive wrath, so that now the vindictiveness of God is satisfied and therefore He doesnÂ’t want to punish men anymore. Rather, the Father wanted to reconcile men and bring men back into a relationship with Him, He wanted to set aside their punishment through forgiveness. Therefore He sent His Son to die for their sin, to change them and bring them to repentance, to make a way for His wrath to be set aside while also protecting the highest well-being of all, so that their punishment would not be a governmental necessity anymore. The Lord wanted to set aside the penalty of the law while upholding the authority, influence, and dignity of the law at the same time. So the Son changes men on behalf of the Father, as opposed to the Son changing the Father on behalf of man. Men are reconciled unto God, instead of God reconciled unto men.

Re: - posted by IWantAnguish (), on: 2009/10/20 0:23If God prefers mercy over retribution, why wasn't the Father merciful to the Son?

I'm sure that if mercy is superior to retribution, it should have been expressed to the Father's son, instead of destroying him with the wrath of a million hells.

Regardless, I believe we are treading on dangerous ground if we believe that we can make absolute pronouncements about how God 'works'; as if He was some sort of machine...

/35


Re: - posted by Leo_Grace, on: 2009/10/20 0:36IWantAnguish said:

Quote:-------------------------Regardless, I believe we are treading on dangerous ground if we believe that we can make absolute pronouncements about how God 'works'; as if He was some sort of machine...-------------------------

Amen to that. God is not something to be dissected as if you could understand His ways. Stand in awe of Him.

Re: - posted by tjservant (), on: 2009/10/20 7:21Not a reply. Just adding to thread.

The Governmental Theory

i. This view was devised by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) during the Arminiancontroversy in Holland

ii. The view:

1. It stated that God Himself requires no payment for sin, but that public justice did require some token or display ofhow much God despises sin.

2. Christ was sacrificed to display to the world what GodÂ’s wrath against sin looks like.

3. The atonement accomplished nothing objective on the sinnerÂ’s behalf. Redemption therefore is primarily asubjective issue hinging completely on the sinnerÂ’s response.

iii. Modern revival of this view

1. Embraced by several New England theologians in the 17th and 18th centuries, including Charles Finney andAlbert Barnes

2. Promoted through groups like Youth With A Mission (YWAM) and popular Christian authors and speakers, such asJed Smock (Â“Brother JedÂ”), a well-known campus evangelist, and George Otis (see his message entitled Â“TheAtonementÂ” at http://www.concentric.net/~for1/otisa.htm)

3. Man-centered revivalism is linked with this theory. See Web site www.revivaltheology.com

iv. Major problems with this view

1. Defines salvation in terms of what the sinner must do leading to perfectionism, moralism, or other works-basedforms of religion

2. Redefines the significance of the cross: rather than emphasizing what Christ objectively accomplished there,people who hold to this view must define the cross in terms of how it can subjectively change the human heart

III. The True Doctrine of Atonement: ChristÂ’s Death as a Penal Substitution

a. Doctrine of Atonement taught in Scripture

i. ChristÂ’s death was a substitution for sinners

/35


ii. God imputed the guilt of their transgressions to Christ and then punished Himfor it

iii. This was a full payment for the price of sins, to satisfy both the wrath and therighteousness of God, so that He could forgive sins without compromising His own holy standard

b. This doctrine was an essential part of Christian doctrine from the beginning

i. Anselm of Canterbury focused his efforts to understand this doctrine

1. He wrote Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?)

2. This offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rathera debt paid to God on behalf of sinners

ii. AnselmÂ’s work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation,specifically the understanding of justification by faith

c. Biblical texts that prove this view

i. Isaiah 53

1. vs. 5-6 speaks specifically of the imputation of the sinnerÂ’s guilt to Christ

2. vs. 8-9 states that Christ was punished for othersÂ’ sins and He Himself was innocent of any wrong doing

3. vs. 10 underscores the fact that it was God who exacted the penalty for sin

4. vs. 11 highlights the principle of substitution, alongside the notion that this is a penal substitution

ii. Other verses that underscore the substitutionary nature of the atonement

1. 2 Corinthians 5:21

2. Galatians 3:13

3. 1 Peter 2:24

4. 1 Peter 3:18

5. 1 John 2:2

d. Scripture teaches that divine justice is perfectly fulfilled in the atoning work of Christ

i. Romans 1:17

ii. 1 John 1:9

iii. He doesnÂ’t merely set aside justice and forgive us out of the sheerabundance of His mercy; He forgives because it is an act of justice to do so (Romans 3:26). (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027CDNotes.htm) Source

/35


Re: - posted by bible4life (), on: 2009/10/20 12:19amen tjservant

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 12:19I thought this was pretty good:

Historical Opinions as to the Nature of Christ's Atoning Death*by Gordon C. Olson________________________________________

The Apostles and early Church Fathers presented in simplicity the life and atoning death of Christ as the only way of salvation through repentance and faith, and did not concentrate on developing scientific statements on how this takes place. It appears that we can group the theories of the centuries under four main headings:

1. SATISFACTION THEORY: - Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt.

A. Satisfaction to Satan, to whom man had chosen to give allegiance and must be liberated by Christ paying to him the ransom price (common from 3rd to 11th centuries): Irenaeus (130?-202?); Origen (185?-254?); Gregory of Nyssa (335-399; Augustine (354-430); Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

B. Satisfaction to God the Father universally for all mankind, through a sacrificial death of the Divine Logos who had become one with lost humanity: Athanasius (296-373), the great defender of the Deity of Christ. In salvation the goodness of God must act consistent with His truthfulness and honor, which involves the principle of justice. "Christ as man endureddeath for us, inasmuch as He offered Himself for that purpose to the Father." Man must be freed not only from the penalty of sin, but from sin itself and be quickened into life.

C. Satisfaction to the ethical nature or justice of God, which demands absolute legal vindication: Anselm (1033-1109), said to have written the first scientific treatise on the Atonement, 1098. God rightfully demands honor and supremacy which man has refused to give, and thus has incurred a debt to God which can only be paid by punishment or by some substituted satisfaction. The God-man, Jesus Christ, with austere dignity came into our world and by His immaculate conduct and by His obedience to a gruesome suffering of death acquired merit before God which may be imputed to the believer as a perfect judicial standing.

D. Satisfaction through a mystical union or a sacrificial bearing of the penalty of sin, providing a "relative satisfaction" as distinguished from an absolute strictly l egal satisfaction in the full discharge of guilt, as advocated by Anselm: Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), a pious and influential monk, typical of the majority of theological leaders from Apostolic times up to Anselm and the Reformation, who followed the descriptive statements of the New Testament without pursuing them to ultimate speculative conclusions.

E. Satisfaction to the offended holiness and justice of God through Christ's bearing the full penalty of man's sin in His vicarious death: Luther (1483-1546); Calvin (1509-1564); and early Reformation leaders, who adopted Anselm's principle of strict judicial satisfaction. The entire guilt and punishment that sinners deserve was transferred to Christ, who by His obedience in life and sufferings endured their total penalty so that sin may no longer be imputed or penalty demanded fromthose for whom He died, or from those who had been elected to be saved from all eternity. "Our sins were transferred to Him by imputation."

F. Satisfaction as above, with greater emphasis in early post-Reformation times upon the active righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer as a perfect positive standing: Lutheran and Reformed (or Calvinistic) Confessions, and the Federal Headship theory developed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and more fully elaborated by Turretin (1623-1687). Under the Covenant of Works, Adam was the federal head of all mankind so his sin and its consequences is legally imputed to all.

This somewhat replaced the organic or natural relationship theory of guilt for Adam's sin advanced by Augustine (354-430). Through the Covenant of Grace, the Lord Jesus is the federal Head of those who are to experience salvation, being appointed to bear the full guilt of their sins (Adamic and personal) in an atoning death viewed as His passive obedience. By His active obedience to the full demands of Divine law, He is said to have fulfilled perfectly man's requirements and i

/35


mputes His righteousness to believers so that it is legally considered to be theirs Since in the full development of the satisfaction theory, whatever has been accomplished in the Atonement is an exact equivalent of guilt so that salvation proceeds upon the basis of strict judicial justice, in no understandable way can it be general or made for everyone in the samesense, or all will be saved since God will not demand a double payment f or guilt-Christ's and the sinner's. But the sacred Atonement was made for all, with no theological reservations: Jn. 3:16-17; Mk. 16:15-16; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2:3-6; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:1-2. The Lord Jesus as the Son of Man was under obligation to obey for Himself, since He was "born under the law" (Ga. 4:4-5). His obedience could not, therefore, be imputed to anyone, but He was free to give His life in atonement since He "committed no sin."

2. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY: - The Atonement was necessary to solve the problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind.

A. The sufferings of Christ were necessary to the Divine government, rather than to the Divine nature: Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390). "Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He Himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God?" He strongly opposed the idea of a ransom paid to Satan, and could not understand why a ransom should bepaid to the Father. He could only fall back on the "economy" of God and put forth no theory of satisfaction. Other early writers, like Athanasius, also mentioned God's governmental problems.

B. Christ suffered unto death in His human nature, not in His Divine nature, and thus the Atonement was not an infinite value to pay fully for the eternal punishment of sinners, but was graciously accepted by God the Father as sufficient to satisfy Divine justice: Duns Scotus (1265-1308) In line with the majority of Christian thinkers of the centuries, he held the principle that the Atonement provided a "relative satisfaction" to the justice of God and proposed his theory in opposition to Anselm, who had insisted upon absolute total equivalent satisfaction through an infinite sacrifice. He came to view the Divine will as not bound by anything fixed in the Divine nature, but free to decide upon what basis sins could be forgiven.

C. Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, and His grace is extended to all. His atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt, nor is it a complete satisfaction of justice for sin. It is a Divinely-appointed condition which precedes the forgiveness of sin, just as the death of a lamb or a goat in the Mosaic economy. Christ's sufferings took the place of a penalty, so that His sufferings have the same effect in reconciling God to man, and procuring the forgiveness of sin, that the sinner's endurance of the punishment due to his sins would have had. The sufferings of Christwere not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty: Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609); Episcopius (1583-1643); Curcellaeus (1586 1659); Limborch (1633-1712); known as Arminianism. Outside Holland, Arminianism exerted considerable influence in France, Switzerland, Germany, Engl and, and America, and hence throughout the world through various denominations, especially Methodism.

D. God came to be viewed as a benevolent Ruler exercising control over moral beings by good and wise laws designed for mutual happiness of Himself and them. Regulation in a moral government is by means of promised blessings for conformity and penalties of suffering for disobedience. While God in compassionate mercy is willing to forgive or relax His just claims against rebellious moral beings upon evidence of a willingness to cease from rebellion and return to happy submission, He cannot wisely do so without some terrible measure of enlightenment and suffering by a Being of profound dignity. This must demonstrate before all the dreadful nature and consequences of sin and provide an eternal moral force against further indulgence and heart-break to Himself as well as to them: Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a prominent Dutch jurist and Arminian theologian, who wrote an important book against Socinianism, 1617.

E. The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied. The active obedience or holiness of Christ made possible His virtuous death in man's behalf, but is not legally imputed to the believer. Christ's atonement was made for all men in the same sense. It was necessary on God's account to enable Him as a consistent Ruler to fulfill His moral obligations to His subjects, when repentant sinners are pardoned through a commitment of faith (E.A. Park, 1883): New England Theology; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758); his son (1745-1801); Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840); Caleb Burge (1782-1838); N.W. Taylor (1786-1858); C. G. Finney (1792-1875); Congregationalists (very extensively); "New School" Presbyterians; several groups of Baptists; other groups and leaders in America and England (called "American Theology").

/35


In the governmental theory, the Atonement is not required by the subjective nature or vindictive justice of God before mercy is extended. It is not God in isolation as the injured party, but rather God as a benevolent Ruler in relationship to His moral creatures, with great problems of reconciliation that require solution. These problems involve man's relation to God in intelligent moral government, as well as some means to convey God's very deep reactions toward sin and His abounding mercy toward man in spite of man's desperate rebellion. Man must be broken down before God in deep respect and penitence in a return to a right attitude towards God's loving regulation before forgiveness can take place. The sacredadvent and atonement of Christ, therefore, is not merely a.measure to discharge guilt by some calculated equivalent. It is the most profound measure conceivable, with an objective to restore a ruptured God-man relationship in all that is involved. The Atonement was, therefore, general in the absolute sense and legally discharged the guilt of no one.

3. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY: - A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place.

The life and sufferings of Christ were conceived to be an exhibition of Divine love to reconcile man back to God by breaking down his resistance and drawing him back into a life of fellowship with God. There is no specific necessity of satisfying the Divine nature or the problems of God's moral government. The life and sufferings of the God-Man were intended to exert a moral impression upon a hard and impenitent heart, which is thereby melted into contrition, and then received into favor by the boundless compassion of God (Abelard): Clement (185?-254?) of Alexandria; Peter Abelard (1079-1142) of France, who opposed Anselm; Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), a lawyer and New England pastor. Many liberals in theology of succeeding generations accepted his general opinions without sharing his deep sincerity.

4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE THEORY: - Sinful man has been misguided and needed a noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living.

If man is going to realize his potential and be reconciled to God, he must repent and reform his ways. For this purpose Jesus Christ was miraculously brought into our world and thus was more than a mere man (Socinianism, 1600's), or was natural born and as a religious genius identified himself with God in special devotion to achieve a unique ministry to mankind (Unitarianism, 1700's). His virtuous and loving conduct in life and in death as a noble martyr showed us how we ought to love God and each other, or become converted and reconciled to God: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), in Poland; Unitarians, who trace their views back through Arius (256-336); and others of humanistic opinion (Christ a mere man).

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

Case 1: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -All are not being saved through it. -Therefore, It could not have been made for all.

Case 2: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -It was made for all. -Therefore, all will be saved through it.

Case 3: -The Atonement was made for all: Is. 53:6; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16-17; 6:51; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2.3-6; Tit. 2:11; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:2; also Is. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Mt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Ro. 2:11; Re. 3:20.

Â•Only a minority are being saved through it: Ge. 6:5-8; Is. 53:1; Mt. 21:10; Lk. 13:23-24; 23:21; Jn. 5:40; 6:60, 67; 7:7; 16:33; Acts 8:1; 14:22; I Co. 4:13.

Â•Therefore, it was not a literal or an exact payment for sin. ________________________________________*Excerpted from his work The Truth Shall Make You Free, Â© 1980 Bible Research Fellowship, Inc. If you are interestedin reading more of Gordon Olson's works, they are available in print form from Revival Theology Promotions.

/35


Re: , on: 2009/10/20 12:25The only reason that God can set aside our penalty of hell, in the forgiveness of sins, is because the atonement of Christhas taken the place of our penalty and has satisfied it's purpose. Now salvation is available to everyone, which they canreceive, if they decide to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel.

Quote:-------------------------If God prefers mercy over retribution -------------------------

There is no "if". The Bible says:

- God does not have any vindictiveness or sadistic desire that needs to be gratified or satisfied (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10).

- God is already wanting to forgive (Ps. 86:5)

- He is already willing to pardon (Neh. 9:17), whenever it is safe for all for Him to do so (2 Pet. 3:9).

- God personally prefers mercy over judgment (Isa. 28:21; Micah 7:18; Jn. 8:10-11; Jas. 2:13).

- He is reluctant to execute judgment (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Quote:------------------------- why wasn't the Father merciful to the Son?-------------------------

Mercy is when you withhold what a person deserves. Jesus did not deserve the cross. If the Father withheld the cross from the Son, this would not have been mercy, because the son never deserved the cross in the first place. Therefore there was no lack of mercy in the Father allowing the Son to take the cross upon Himself. Jesus even said that no man takes his life, but he lays it down on his own accord. It was his own free will choice.

Retributive justice requires that everyone be treated the way they deserve. Jesus didn't deserve the cross, therefore the cross did not satisfy retributive justice.

Public justice requires that God make a public expression, to all of His moral subjects (men and angels), His regard for His law, so that further crime is prevented. The atonement of Christ manifests God's regard for His law, even greater than the penalty of the law upon sinners would have, and therefore the atonement satisfies public justice in a much greater way then the penalty of the law upon sinners would have.

The death of the innocent can satisfy public justice, but it can never satisfy retributive justice.

Quote:-------------------------destroying him with the wrath of a million hells.-------------------------

Where in the Bible did you ever read that Jesus endured the wrath of a "million hells"?? That sounds more like Paul Washer than the Bible!

Jesus didn't even endure the same amount of pain that ONE sinner in hell would have endured! But Jesus didn't have to. Because of the dignity of His person, and the sinlessness of His character, Jesus could endure a much LESSER amount of pain in a LESSER duration of time, and this is an adequate substitute for the damnation of our ENTIRE planet.

/35


Re: - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/20 12:26Thanks for the spam.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 12:31Yea tjservant, thanks for the spam...

Re: - posted by MaryJane, on: 2009/10/20 12:34GreetingsJust wanted to say thanks again for sharing this. I am going to share it now with my boys in this morning devotion time. I also wanted to say thank you for posting the audio link so that I can share it with some family members. This is an awesome teaching that has really caused me to reflect on the love of my Lord that He was willing to endure so much for me when I could never be worthy of such a love on my own.

God Blessmj

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 12:41Amen tjservant. Washer nails it. It is well worth sharing with anyone who has ears.

Re: - posted by Leo_Grace, on: 2009/10/20 12:54

Quote:-------------------------truefaithsav wrote:I thought this was pretty good:

Historical Opinions as to the Nature of Christ's Atoning Death*by Gordon C. Olson________________________________________

The Apostles and early Church Fathers presented in simplicity the life and atoning death of Christ as the only way of salvation through repentance andfaith, and did not concentrate on developing scientific statements on how this takes place. It appears that we can group the theories of the centuries under four main headings:

1. SATISFACTION THEORY: - Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt. ...2. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY: - The Atonement was necessary to solve the problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind. ...3. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY: - A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place. ...4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE THEORY: - Sinful man has been misguided and needed a noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living. ...

-------------------------

All opinions and theories only. What is important is that God did it, and it works - that's all we need to know. The hows and whys are all conjecture that cannot be truly pinned down by any man. It would be better for us to continue feeding on the Word and to sanctify ourselves through the Spirit, rather than dwell on things that really do not matter.

/35


Re: - posted by IWantAnguish (), on: 2009/10/20 13:27I would reckon that what Christ suffered on that cross was worse than hell could ever be.

How so?

David says if I ascend to heaven, you are there, if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there.

While Jesus says, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Has anyone, or will anyone be completely forsaken by God?

Only the Son of Man.

May God be glorified in all things.

Re: The Misunderstood Cross - Paul Washer - posted by hmmhmm (), on: 2009/10/20 13:47I think H.Bonar says some wonderful things on the subject of the cross in this excerpt:

Â“The completeness of the sacrificial work on Calvary will be matter for eternal contemplation and rejoicing, long after every sin has been, by its cleansing efficacy, washed out of our being for ever. Shall we ever exhaust the fullness of the cross? Is it a mere stepping-stone to something beyond itself ? Shall we ever cease to glory in it (as the apostle gloried), not only because of past, but because of present and eternal blessing? The forgiveness of sin is one thing; but is that all?

The crucifixion of the world is another; but is that all? Is the cross to be a relic, useless though venerable, like the serpent of brass laid up in the tabernacle; to be destroyed perhaps at some future time, and called Nehushtan? Or is it not rather like the tree of life, which bears twelve manner of fruits, and yields its fruit every month, by the banks of the celestial river?

Its influence here on earth is transforming; but even after the transformation has been completed, and the whole church perfected, shall there not be a rising higher and higher, a taking on of greater and yet greater comeliness, a passing from glory to glory; and all in connection with the cross, and through the never-ending vision of its wonders?

Of the new Jerusalem it is said, Â‘The Lamb is the light (or lamp) thereof.Â’ The Lamb is only another name for Christ crucified: so that thus it is the cross that is the lamp of the holy city ; and with its light, the gates of pearl, the jasper wall, the golden streets, the brilliant foundations, and the crystal river, are all lighted up. The glow of the cross is everywhere, penetrating every part, and reflected from every gem; and by its peculiar radiance transporting the dwellers of the city back to Golgotha, as the fountainhead of all this splendour.

It is light from Calvary that fills the heaven of heavens. Yet it is no dim religious light: for the glory of God is to lighten it; and its light is like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper-stone, clear as crystal; and there is no night there, and they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light. Yes, we shall never be done with the cross and the blood.Â”

Â–Horatius Bonar, The Everlasting Righteousnes

Re: - posted by bdcutler (), on: 2009/10/20 14:45Leo_Grace wrote:

Quote:-------------------------What is important is that God did it, and it works - that's all we need to know. The hows and whys are all conjecture that cannot be truly pinned down by any man.-------------------------

Amen. I understand why some people feel like they need to address perceived errors, however, if we try to "figure out" the cross we miss some very important points. This is because it is man's tendency to make things smaller than they areso we can understand them.

/35


For example, in Brother Washers message (which overall was good and had many insightful points) he stated the following:

Quote:-------------------------"I've been saved, " and I go "From what? From what have you been saved?" People usually say "Sin!" " Nope! ... Nope!"

They say: "What do you mean 'Nope"?'" Sin wasn't after you. Sin wasn't going to throw you in Hell. You have sinned, but the sin caused something else. Sin isn't going to throw you in Hell! Sin is not even a person!-------------------------

If the cross was just about saving men from God's wrath, then do we do with scriptures like Matthew 1:21? Or what about Romans 6? Indeed, the Greek word for save (σῴζω: sōzō) implies a lot more than just saving from danger and destruction, but also of healing and restoring to good health.

Now, I don't know about "theories of atonement," but I do know that He died for my sins and I've been saved from sin, death, and God's wrath. I know that as many as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death, my old man crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed. I am a new creature in Him. I know whom I have believed in, and He is able.


Quote:-------------------------If the cross was just about saving men from God's wrath, then do we do with scriptures like Matthew 1:21?------------------------- Being saved from sin is being saved from the wrath of God. Paul Washer is simply attempting to get people to see the bigger picture.

Re: - posted by Leo_Grace, on: 2009/10/20 15:13

Quote:-------------------------tjservant wrote:

Quote:-------------------------If the cross was just about saving men from God's wrath, then do we do with scriptures like Matthew 1:21?------------------------- Being saved from sin is being saved from the wrath of God. Paul Washer is simply attempting to get people to see the bigger picture.-------------------------

I agree totally. Because of God's holiness, sin is inextricably linked with God's wrath and spiritual death. Washer was simply stating the obvious - that the power to throw man into hell emanates from God and His wrath. This is what we mustbe saved from - God's wrath. Without a holy God in the picture, sin holds no terror for anyone.

Sin, spiritual death, and God's wrath are all bundled up together and in one supreme act of love, Jesus Christ redeemed us from all these through his death on the cross. This is the simple truth that we all need to understand - not the illusory philosophies of mere men who would presume upon themselves some expertise that goes beyond this simple truth.


Quote:-------------------------Because of God's holiness, sin is inextricably linked with God's wrath and spiritual death. Washer was simply stating the obvious - that the power to throw man into hell emanates from God and His wrath. This is what we must be saved from - God's wrath. Without a holy God in the picture, sin holds no terror for anyone.

Sin, spiritual death, and God's wrath are all bundled up together and in one supreme act of love, Jesus Christ redeemed us from all these through his death on the cross. This is the simple truth that we all need to understand - not the illusory philosophies of mere men who would presume upon themselves some expertise that goes beyond this simple truth.-------------------------

/35


Amen.

This is a perfect example of why I so often use the words of others. Well said. :-)

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 20:49It is enough to know in simplicity that, because of the atonement of Christ, when we turn from our sins and turn to Christ,God turns from His wrath. But if we do not turn from our sins to Christ, we abide under God's wrath, even though Jesus Christ has died for us. As a new convert, before I heard the different views, this was all I knew.

If we need to be more specific than that, we can say that the penalty of eternal hell can be remitted by God's grace and mercy, when we are converted to Christ, because the atonement of Jesus Christ has substituted or taken the place of our punishment.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 21:01I have a question for truefaithsav.

Are you just doing a "cut and paste" of Jesse Morrell's teachings? It seems identical.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 21:20Hi sscott... That is a very good question considering the fact that Logic has quoted Jesse Morell in the past on this forum and he and truefaithsav have a 'like-minded-ness' like no other I've ever seen here. From what I remember Josef Urban asked Logic about Morell and his theologies.... and either I missed him somewhere on the thread or logic never responded.

Re: - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/20 21:40truefaithsav is probably Jessee Morell. No doubt, he's using his materials. Which is why you only see truefaithsav talk about issues that pretty much center around issues of atonement, and nothing else, because frankly, Jessee is ignorant of Christian doctrine, and theology in general. Which is why he'll seldom talk about anything else. His style of debate is pretty much the same too (and he uses it shamefully in open-air preaching): ignore most everything your opponent says, don't engage in real dialog, and pretty much just flood you with and endless series of quotes and essays, making it impossible for you to ever reply to anything he says, because every objection you raise will be answered with another tsunami of essays. He attempts to "win" arguments by silencing you through intimidation and brute force. But I'm not so convinced he's really interested in winning anybody to anything so much as to rejoice over hearing his own voice. So, early on he might reply with actual dialog, but after that, he just enters into what I call "spam."

I'm not intending to sound crude, and I don't know for sure that either Logic or truefaithsav is in fact Jessee. I'm just sharing my personal subjective observations. Personally speaking, I wish Sermon Index included a "block" button on the forums. I'd rather not see anything truefaithsav ever posts, because there is nothing of edifying value in it.

As it is, I generally believe those who hold to and preach a moral government theology are not saved. If what Paul Washer preached at the start of this thread is true, then I cannot see how we are in anyway talking about the same faith, as the meaning of the cross as preached in moral government theology is radically different from those who hold to a penal substitutionary atonement. This is not like the minor differences that exist between Reformed and Arminian theology.

There might be some exceptions to this general rule of thumb. But in my opinion, they are fundamentally no different than the individuals who corrupted the churches of Galatia, to which Paul said those who are trusting in their ability to keep the law for salvation, instead of trusting in the Lord, should just go ahead and cut the entirety of their male organ off instead of limiting themselves to mere circumcision. Such people, Paul said, have fallen from grace, and have severed themselves from Christ.

So that nobody here thinks I'm speaking rash, I don't make such statements lightly.

/35


Re: , on: 2009/10/20 22:17"truefaithsav is probably Jessee Morell. No doubt, he's using his materials. Which is why you only see truefaithsav talk about issues that pretty much center around issues of atonement, and nothing else, because frankly, Jessee is ignorant of Christian doctrine, and theology in general. Which is why he'll seldom talk about anything else. His style of debate is pretty much the same too (and he uses it shamefully in open-air preaching): ignore most everything your opponent says, don't engage in real dialog, and pretty much just flood you with and endless series of quotes and essays, making it impossible for you to ever reply to anything he says, because every objection you raise will be answered with another tsunami of essays. He attempts to "win" arguments by silencing you through intimidation and brute force. But I'm not so convinced he's really interested in winning anybody to anything so much as to rejoice over hearing his own voice. So, early on hemight reply with actual dialog, but after that, he just enters into what I call "spam." KJ

If this technique is true as you describe then this is exactly my observation. Notice too that if the 'narrow subject' they allow themselves to expound upon are ignored for too long, they will start another one. Even when you call them on their motives they give you a quick quip then quickly throw the 'doctrinal bait' back out for anyone who will grab ahold to keep things "hoppin". It's is about as covertly contrived as you can get.

I'm glad to see that some here are starting to connect the dots in a way that I could never truly link and articulate to a contrived technique. I think King Jimmy has truly connected those proper dots and has described it equally well.


Quote:-------------------------It's is about as covertly contrived as you can get.

-------------------------

Jed Smock, who has served as Jesse's mentor, like many campus "preachers," are generally masters of control and manipulation when it comes to these things. It's like a politician who tries to steer a conversation in the way they want it to go. There is always an agenda. There is always some sort of show or game. There is never any honesty. These men have no heart. They don't love people. They don't love God. Thankfully most churches stay as far away as possible from these plagues, and recognize them for the false prophets they are. Yet amazingly, they have a few people who put some money in their pockets.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 22:44"Jed Smock, who has served as Jesse's mentor, like many campus "preachers," are generally masters of control and manipulation when it comes to these things. It's like a politician who tries to steer a conversation in the way they want it to go. There is always an agenda" KJ

You're making it all make sense to me now. There was an instance concerning some books (Psalms etc) where I thought there was, at best, superficial knowledge of certain prophetic types and shadows to the NT. I won't be more specific with the exact verses so they don't research them but suffice it to say there was a lack of knowledge pertaining to specific Psalms that most people here, I believe, would, or should, know of in some depth.

Jed Smock---wikipedia--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Jed


Quote:-------------------------superficial knowledge of certain prophetic types and shadows to the NT.

-------------------------

/35


Of course. You will notice most Scripture quotations cited by such individuals are often (though not always) entirely divorced from any contextual considerations arrived at from close and careful exegesis of a specific passage. Most quotes are simply proof texts. And proof texting is becoming to the style of argument, as the name of the game is to overwhelm one's opponent, and not to actually educate and demonstrate. Such simply take a random text, and skim its surface for a shallow deduction, that hopes for a "shock and awe" campaign.

Re: , on: 2009/10/20 23:02jesse morell: http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=6B007FJ2&GroupID=0B0078JH#group-options

There also seems to be an affinity for Finney as well. I'm not bashing Finney before someone goes 'ape' on me. I am making the observation.

Re: - posted by KingJimmy (), on: 2009/10/20 23:33For edification sake, I'm reposting the original message. I don't really care for a lot of the subsequent discussion (though some of it was very edifying).

--

What follows is from a transcription of a spoken message by Paul Washer concerning the misunderstood cross. It might be of great use to many to pass on to those in their families that are foggy on the most basic meaning of Christ's death. I'd like to see a condensed version of this in a gospel tract or pamphlet. The want of a clear and sound grasp of the gospel, as quickened by the Spirit (who must kill in order to make alive), is not only the cause of the falseness of apostate Christendom; it is the principal cause of weakness and doubt among the wheat. Deficiency here guarantees deficiency everywhere else. Reggie

===============================

Today we are going to look at ... it was actually prompted yesterday while I was working on the yard I was also listening to a preacher on the radio. And it struck my attention that when he began the sermon he says: "I'm going to tell you about the meaning of the Cross." And I was surprised that he spent a lot of time talking about the Cross of Jesus Christ, but did not put the emphasis on where the emphasis was, and did not truly explain the meaning of the cross. And he did something that is so common today. Let me give you just a little bit of background.

As you know I have said this before: Wisdom was not born with any one nor it will die with anyone. Now If I stand up here today and I say that the church at large is basically missing the point about the gospel of Jesus Christ you can look at me and say: "Who are you? Are you Billy Graham? Are you this guy or that guy? How or what gives you the right to stand here and say: Â“The church at large is missing the point?" Well, here's the point. History gives me that right.

You see, one of the things that you have to understand is this: There is a difference between a theologian and a pop-theologian. Did you ever hear of pop music? ItÂ’s the music that is popular, music that is given to the populists, itÂ’s the music of the day; it kind of jumps up. It doesn't typically last very long and one of the reasons is that it is pretty superficial. You know like.....Sonny and Cher. Â“I would die for you; I will even climb a mountain for you!"

I never could figure out how climbing a mountain was more than dying for someone. But pop music is very superficial. Also there is what we called pop-theology, which is very superficial. Theology is the study of God and there is a lot of whatwe call pop-theologians on the radio. They are not truly trained theologians, they just have a following. They haven't givethemselves to study, they give themselves more to preaching. And their preaching deals more with illustrations, and stories, and antidotes, and cute little sayings, but as far as the theology, NO!

/35


Now whenever someone comes to you and says like I said this morning: "The church by large has missed the point with regard to the Cross" the first thing that you have to ask then, is this: "Why do you say that?" The answer better be this: "Not only because I have found these things in the Bible but because history backs me up."

You see, if you say for example: "I believe a certain thing."

If you stick Benny Hinn here and me right here, and if you can pull both of us apart and if you ask Benny Hinn why he believes that all the stuff he does and the fact that he makes millions of dollars and that he will only stay in five star hotels and all such things. If you ask him why he does that, he will tell you: "Because that is what the Bible teaches." And if you ask me, I will say: "He is completely wrong!" And if you ask me why, I will say, "Because this is what the Bible teaches". Now the question is, both of us are using the Bible as our authority, so who is right? You know that is the big question, who is right? Well there are two things that you need to look at. One of them is called context, and the other is called history.

First of all I want you to understand something. If the Bible says, or if I make a statement the barn is red, it means the barn is red. I'm so tired of speaking on university campuses and hearing students say: "Oh, that's just your interpretation." And I say: "Well here interpret it grammatically, not according to the Spirit, just grammatically, like you would in an English class. What is it saying grammatically?" That's the first one.

The second point is this. We have 2000 years of Christian history. Ok? 2000 years of Christian's writing thousands, no millions of books. Now, if I teach something on the Cross and you compare what I teach to 2000 years of Christian history,and you don't find it anywhere in 2000 years of Christian history, then you've got to decide who is right? 2000 years of Christian theologians and writers or Paul Washer? Well obviously 2000 years of Christian history and teachers are right.

Whenever someone teaches you something one of the good things to do is to compare what they are saying to 2000 years of Christian history. If nobody agrees with them, they are probably wrong, aren't they? And if we as Americans come up with some new theology, or a new way of doing Christianity, yet it disagrees with 2000 years worth of Christians form all over the world. Who's probably wrong? We are! You see, and so that's why I say today, that on the teaching of the Cross most of the people are completely missing the point.

And here, when we hear a teaching on the Cross, and when someone preaches about the suffering of Jesus, what is it that you usually hear about? Physical suffering, right? Isn't that what? And I mean the preacher - and we need to talk about physical suffering. But the preacher will talk about physical suffering, and what will happen? Then he will start crying, and everybody in the congregation starts crying.

He talks about how the nails went through a certain part of the wrist, because that was the only thing that would hold up a man, and how the nail went through both the feet in a certain place. And then, in order to keep alive the person would have to push upon the nail in order to take a breath. Because when you died of crucifixion you died of suffocation.

They'll talk about the spear in the side; they'll talk about the crown of thorns on the head, they'll talk about all these kindsof things, the beating with the whip, how he drug his cross and the blood is flowing down and everything else. And then they'll tell you: "By this we are saved". Now, that draws you to a certain conclusion. How is it that the physical sufferings of Jesus, caused by men, somehow paid for our sins? It doesn't work out theologically. Are we actually to believe that our sins are paid for because the Romans and Jews rejected Jesus? Are our sins paid for because they whipped him and

/35


beat him?

I was in German Mennonite camp, a bible camp, in northern, actually in the mountains, the Alps in Romania. And I walked to their theological, they had a theological library, and I walked in there and I saw a thing on the Cross of Christ. So I pull it out, and praise the Lord! It was not in German. The only book in there I think that was not in German. And I startedlooking through it, and this is what the man said: "God sent His son who lived a perfect life..." Now this is a theologian! "God sent His son who lived a perfect life and then according to the plan of God, men rejected him, they beat Him, they crucified Him, they mocked Him, they put crown of thorns on his head, they stuck a spear in his side, and all these different things. And God looked at that suffering, which Jesus suffered, at the hands of men and He considered that to be payment for all our sins against Him.

Now, a lot of people say: "Well yeah, that sounds good!"

Actually, historically that's a heresy! It is the deepest form of heresy. I mean you could be wrong about a lot of things, butif you are wrong about the Cross, you are in trouble. Now here's what I want you to do. I want you to put 2 things together. How is it, what happened on that Cross that would cause God to forgive us of our sins? Now, the first question though is this. Why does the Son of God, God in the flesh, why is it necessary that He die? Why can't God just forgive everybody? Have you ever thought about that?

Why can't He just forgive? I mean, we are called to forgive people aren't we? If you sin against me, I'm called to forgive you. I'm not called to require a sacrifice or anything. I'm just told to forgive you. So why can't God simply forgive? That's the first question you need to answer. And I will show you a verse. I want us to go to Proverbs. I am going to condense about a week worth of lectures into 1 thing, so I just want to go to 1 text. Go to Proverbs 17:15. Now look what it says: "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike, are an abomination to the Lord." Now let us just consider this one phrase: "He who justifies the wicked is an abomination to the Lord".

Now we are in a big problem. Most of the songs we sing today are going to be about God justifying the wicked. That's what we sing about all the time. "Man, God justifies us, even though we were sinners! God declared us to be right." That's what the justification means. God declared you to be right before Him. And you praise God for that. But there's a big problem here. Do you see what it is? God says that anyone who declares the wicked to be right, when they are not right, they are an abomination before Him. So if

God declared you to be right when you were not right, it's an abomination. By such an act of injustice, God would be making Himself an abomination. If God forgives the wicked, He Himself becomes an abomination. In a same way if a judge forgives a murderer and lets him go, he's no longer a Just Judge.

It's so amazing to me how so many people - I speak at the university, the students are just furious because I say that God throws men in Hell. They are furious when I say that. But do you know what bothers Heaven? Heaven has a problem with what God has done. Heaven's problem is this. If God is a just God He cannot forgive. He must punish the wicked. That is the thing that occupies the whole Bible.

Have you ever wondered why God required all the animals to die in the Old Testament? It's a symbol, and a type. But the whole point is that if the sinner sins, he must die. He must die. And if God justifies someone who is wicked; if he declares a wicked person to be innocent, then God is an abomination. God has become wicked.

/35


Now we are beginning to see why it was necessary for God - the Son to die. God cannot simply forgive. The law, the righteous law, demands that the sinner die. Demands it! You just can't push that away. You just can't say ok, well, we are going to let them slide this time. If God does that, He is unjust; He is wrong; He is sinful; He becomes just like the devil, and the devil's accusations against Him now become correct. Can you imagine devil's standing before God, saying? "HeyGod, remember when we sinned against you? You were just then, weren't you? You cast us all out of Heaven, Yeah, where's your justice now God? Huh? Where is it? This man, this ball of dirt sins against you, and you let him go. Guess what God, youÂ’ve become like me. Congratulations!"

You see the problem? That's the problem. Now the only way that God can forgive sinful men is if God who made the lawand God who demands satisfaction, if He Himself comes down and pays the penalty. That's why the doctrine of the Jehovah-witnesses is so blasphemous. Look what they are saying. They are saying that when the world fell, God created an innocent being, the Son. He Â‘createdÂ’ Him. And then took this innocent being, independent from God, and put Him on a Cross, to die, to fix the problem.

That's not what happened. The Son of God is not a created being; He is God. You see, the only way the law of God can be satisfied is by God. And you can use this against the Jehovah-witnesses. If Jesus is not God, then everybody is going to Hell, because what was done on that Cross is not enough. God made the law; it is Â‘GodÂ’ who has to satisfy it. It has to be God.

If Jehovah-witness comes to the door and says that Jesus wasn't God, just sit down and just start weeping. He'll say: "Why are you crying for?" "We are all going to Hell." "Why?" "Because only God can satisfy God's law. Only He can pay theprice. And if Jesus is not God then we are going to Hell. Me and you, and the rest of us." But you see, God in order to forgive the wicked, and still be Just, He must die in the wicked's place. ThatÂ’s the only way He can forgive is to die in the place of the wicked.

Now here's comes the important point. How does He die? What is it about the death of the Son of God that leads to our forgiveness? How does His death satisfy the law? Now, here is something I want you to understand. When someone says they have been saved,- now I'd never do this to a young Christian or, but if they are a seminary students or something they are going to get this, if they say "I've been saved, " and I go "From what? From what have you been saved?" People usually say "Sin!" " Nope! ... Nope!"

They say: "What do you mean "Nope"?" "Sin wasn't after you. Sin wasn't going to throw you in Hell. You have sinned, but the sin caused something else. Sin isn't going to throw you in Hell! Sin is not even a person! It's not a living being that'sgoing to judge you, and grab you and throw you in Hell. From what have you been saved? This is going to really rock your boat. I'll tell you from what you have been saved.

From what you have been saved is not 'What,' it is 'Who.' You have been saved from God! You see here's what you need to understand. God is the judge of the entire Universe. You have sinned, since you have sinned and made yourself an enemy of God before the just judge, when you stand before Him, He will throw you in Hell!"

Now I hear a lot of people say: "God doesn't throw anybody in Hell.Â” Well that's really nice if you write it on the back of a Christian T-shirt, sing it in a contemporary Christian song, but it is not in the Bible. Jesus said: "You do not be afraid of man who can kill your body, but be afraid of God who can kill your body and throw you in Hell." You see? Again this Godof ours is not very politically correct. He is not a tamed lion. People, have you ever heard this statement? We see it in Romans 5. We also see it in Romans 1: "enemy of God," and "hater of God." Have you ever heard that word "enemy of Go

/35


d?" Do you know what the problem is?

Contemporary Christianity interprets it differently from the historical Christianity. You will hear preachers say: "When the Bible says that we were an enemy of God, it means that WE were an enemy against God, that WE were rebellion against God, that WE were against God. But it doesn't mean that God was against us, that God was our enemy." And than they will usually say something like this: "It's like you are holding a gun against God, and God wants you to put that gun down, and then you'll be friends." That's not true! All throughout historical Christianity when it says "enemies of God," you know what it really means? Not only were you God's enemy, holding your gun on Him, God was your enemy holding His gun on you.

You put your gun down, fine! He still has His gun on you. You are a criminal, you broke the law, you deserve to die, you can put your gun down to surrender if you want, but you are still going to hell. Because not only you are his enemy, but He is yours. God says things in the Bible like: "I will hate them." "I will come against them." "I will fight against them." "I'll raise up a standard." Again this God of 21st century Christianity is a lot a different from the biblical one, and a lot different than one that has been preached throughout 2000 years of Christian history. So you see, not only were you making yourself an enemy against God, God was your enemy. And then one from home you need to be saved is God because He is coming, remember what Amos has said: "Be prepared to meet thy God." Remember what Revelation says and talks about:

"He is coming and the captains and the great man of the world will cry out for the rocks to fall upon them to hide them from the wrath of the lamb."

He is not coming back with his hand like going: "Oh, I just want to save you but now you have to go to hell." No! He is coming back, it says: "sword of the Spirit." I mean everything else is going on here. He is coming back and He is going to fight somebody. Because He is mad! Now, the problem that you have to see. There is punishment. We have broken God's law, so now we deserve to be punished. From where does that punishment come? Ask yourself that question. From where does that punishment come?

We have grown up under preaching that tells us, well if you sin, you know some bad thing happens to you, that's not God that's just the consequences of sin just like the law of gravity, you jump off the roof you gonna get hurt, you sin you gonna get hurt. It is not God's doing that's just the way that the things are. That's not true. God talks about coming and judgment all the time against people's sin. He does, just read the Bible. All the time! "I will come against you," Â“I will set my face against you." OK? So we realize that we have been saved from God and his punishment.

So how is that punishment to be done away with? When Jesus the Son of God was dying on the cross it is not the spears of Romans, or the crowns of thorns, or the nails in His hands that save you. It is not that that pays for the crime. The suffering that the man heaped upon Jesus, God does not look at it and say

"OK, good enough!"

That's not what paid for your sin! What paid for your sin? Look in Isaiah 53. This is what paid for your sin: Isaiah 53:10 "But the Lord was pleased to crush Him." Now, you've all read 53 and you've heard gazillions of sermons on the radio and everything about Isaiah 53. But isn't it funny that when you hear sermons on Isaiah 53 it is always verses 3, 4, 5 and 6 talking about the sufferings heaped upon Christ by men. But very rarely do you hear Isaiah 53:10 "It pleased the Lord".

/35


Who's the Lord? The word here is not Adonai, its Yahweh, or as some of you may pronounce it Jehovah. I mean its God.

"It pleased God to..." Â“What? Crush Him?" This is the Messiah.

"It pleased the Lord to crush Him." This word crush, it refers to like... The best illustration I can give you is, imagine... Do you know what a mill stone is? A mill stone was a big stone, usually about this big, round, maybe about that tall; I mean a huge stone. And then they placed another stone on top of that, which actually rotated. OK? It turned. And what you would do _ as you can imagine you put grain, corn and everything, in between those two stones and when they may their way through there, that stone would ground them to powder. That's the terminology being used here. That is what it refersto. It pleased God the Father to crush His own Son and to ground Him into powder.

Now another illustration would be this. Imagine you are standing at the foot of a dam, that's a thousand miles high and a thousand miles wide. And you are standing right there at the foot of this thing and it is filled with water. And in 1 second the wall is pulled out away. What do you think it is going to happen to you? It means its over. Your body is never going tobe found. Or imagine you are walking one day, and a star 6 thousand times larger that the sun crashes the Earth right on your head.

What are we talking about here? How is it that the cross saves you? It's because on the cross all the sin that God hates.... You know youÂ’ve heard someone say that the love of God is so great that you cannot describe it and that if you were to even get a glimpse of how great it is it will drive you mad. It is so great that it will literally drive you mad. And the only way you're ever going to be able to know more of the love of God is if God supernaturally strengthens you and glorifies your body because standing in His presence and to know His love would be too much joy for you that you will explode. I mean you just wonÂ’t be able to handle it; you'll go mad. Well, in the same way God hatred is so great it goes beyond description, so that if you were to even catch a glimpse of it, it would indeed drive you mad. It would be like a little wax figure this tall that has a nuclear bomb explode 3 inches away from it. You have no idea.

The sin that evokes God's hatred, and I mean that word 'hatred', OK? God hates! The sin that evokes God's hatred was placed on His son. Now, you take all of the sins of God's people, from the first man ever saved on the face of the earth, to the last person ever saved on the face of the earth. All of God's people, all of their sin, placed on the Son. All of God's justice, just punishment, but also all of Gods just hatred, His just loathing, everything that should be poured out on these sinful creatures throughout eternity, God throws down on His only begotten Son and crushes Him under the weight of His own justice.

You say: "Brother Paul could you kill your son for me?" "I'm sorry." You can argue theologically whether I should or I shouldn't - I couldn't. And I'm evil. The Bible says, Â“If you being evil can give good gifts to your children, if you being evil can love your children ....Â” Now here's God, perfect love manifested towards a perfect son, who never did anything but bless His Father and crushes Him under the weight of His holy hatred.

When those preachers, you know the cup, you know, Jesus says let this cup pass from me and they say: "Yes, going to the cross He didn't want to go the cross" No! They are wrong, and yes they are right; they just don't know what they are saying. Listen to me, there have been martyrs who have gone, followers of Jesus Christ who have been burned as a steak and while they were burning they have lifted their hands and praised the Lord. Ok? Now let me ask you this question.Do you think they are greater than our Lord Jesus?

/35


There have been Christians... I have a picture in my office. I keep it right in front of my desk, a huge picture of all these Christians crucified in a Roman theater, and they have been burned after they have been crucified, and lions have been set free on others. I keep that in front of me all the time to remind myself that this is still happening today. And there were many of those who were crucified and sang out with joy as they were pounding the nails. Do you think that they are greater than Jesus? Do you think Jesus would actually cower, and fret, and cry under a punishment that even some of Hisfollowers were able to endure with joy? Do you think Jesus is weaker than them?

What you need to understand is when Jesus was in that garden, when He said, "Save me from this hour." "Let this cup pass from me." He wasn't thinking about the nails in His hands. He wasn't thinking about a wooden cross or a spear in hisside, or Romans, or anything else. What He was thinking about is this: "Father, I have never been out of your bosom. I have always been in the most perfect, wonderful, beautiful relationship with You. I have all throughout the eternity." God did not create this world because He needed something, because God was always content with His son. You take everybody in this world and throw them straight into the Hell, God will still be happy because He's got His Son. I don't want to offend your humanism, but that's just the way it is.

God's perfectly happy. He did this; He created us, not because of His need but because of the overflow of His abundance. And here His son is separated from Him. I remember after my little boy was born and I had a monitor up there in his room and I was outside and had the other monitor just right within the door... working up on a ladder, probably about 15 feet in the air, and nailing some things.... and he cried ...

I didn't even think, I threw the hammer and leaped. I went right off the ladder. I hit the ground running. I was a new father, but I still do the same thing today. I mean, hit the ground running. If we being evil could love our children and here is the Son, thinking: "I'm going to be ripped out of the heart of the Father, the Father is going to turn His face away from me."Now you may think: "Oh yes, he turned His face away because he didn't want to see His son suffering."

No, you've got it all wrong. He turned his face away because His Son had become detestable! His son had become sin. All of you who are fathers and those who are mothers know. I mean, after your kid gets to a certain age, he does something and its: "Is dad looking, is mom looking?" I mean he can't do anything unless mom and dad are looking. I can be worshiping and he grabs my face and goes like this. The Father turns his face away and says:

"No!" He became the abominable thing, an abomination.

You and I are an abomination before God in order for us to be forgiven God has to die as an abomination in our place. You and I deserve to be crushed under God's wrath. In order for God to save us and forgive us He was crashed under Hisown wrath. That's what the Cross is! That's what it means! And now you can to see why, if you ever have a heavenly vision of truly what happened on that Cross, it will affect you for the rest of your life. You'll become a prisoner to that thing. You won't be able to get away from it.

Let me give you an idea. I used that illustration. I love to use it because of the shock value of it, because it makes the people so mad. A kid said one time: "Well, when I go to hell..." He was taking joy in the fact that if he went into Hell, at leastthere will be people on the outside who would be suffering because they loved him so much, and knew he was going to hell. You know that mentality? "Well I will hurt myself, and it will hurt everybody else who loves me?" I noticed this tendency in him, and I said...

"Young man, let me just give you an idea of what is going to happen on the day that you stand before God." He said: "OK, I'm not afraid"

/35


I said: "You will be!" I said: "This is what's going to happen. The moment you stand before God, everything that your parents loved about you, it wasn't you, did you know that? It was the common grace of God on you. That's what caused them to love you. Now, at the moment He declares your judgment, that grace is gonna be pulled off of you. And what your parents are going to see is a seething monster that would make a Hitler looked like a choir boy.

And do you wanna know something?" I said "when you take your first step into hell, the last thing you are going to hear is all of creation, along with your parents, standing up and applauding and worshiping God, because God has rid the earth of you. So don't think that anybody is going to be mourning up here in heaven and some how youÂ’re going to have vengeance on at least somebody as you suffer there in hell. You will find no satisfaction there!"

He said: "That's horrible!" I said: "More horrible than you can ever imagine, repent and believe. Flee from the wrath to come." I was speaking at the university last week and some students were in invisible protest against me. They came in, sat down on the front rows, cross their arms, pull their hats all down, and pretended to be sleeping, and this was their big protest, I guess.

I just walked over to the corner and I said: "Listen... listen." and I began to tell them about Hell. And I said, "Now I will give each of you a quarter so you can go back to your room and call your mom and tell her that all of you are going to hell. And she needs to prey for your soul." Sometimes in the universities, the biggest argument they use against me is: "A loving Jesus would never send anyone to hell." Do you want to know something? If it were not for the loving Jesus, we wouldn't even have the doctrine of Hell. Do you know that?

You look in the Old Testament you can hardly find it. Oh, itÂ’s there, but there are comparatively few passages in the whole Old Testament about Hell.

You look in the writings of Paul; there is almost nothing about Hell. Really! Do you know where almost everything we know about Hell comes from? From Jesus! Really! Almost everything we know about Hell comes from Him. The loving Jesus who died to save men spoke more about Hell than everybody else in the entire Bible put together. Why?

I think that there is one reason. This is just my opinion. Hell is so horrible that man cannot even comprehend it. So the only one who can truly comprehend how horrible hell is - is God Himself, since only God is able to communicate the horrible nature of hell in any way.

So remember now when you hear about Jesus dying for you, you know now, that it is more than some whips. Those whips were nothing. I don't want to depreciate His physical suffering. But, folks, the cross is about the son of God being crushed by His own Father. And when he cried out: "It is finished!" That meant PAID IN FULL!

Do you know why God can never pour out his wrath on you, if you are Christian? He can never, never pour out his wrathon you. Never! His judgment, His wrath, can never be poured out on you. Never! It is impossible! He can't do it! He can only act toward you now with the greatest of love, the same love with which He loved His dearly begotten son. ThatÂ’s the love that youÂ’re loved with. He cannot love you with anything less. Do you want to know why He cannot pour His wrath out on you? I'll tell you why. It is because His son drank it. It doesn't exist anymore. It is gone! He drank it. There is nothing left for you.

/35


There is no more punishment for you if you are a Christian. But if you are not a Christian, oh, dear friend, you don't even want to know, you don't even want to know what awaits you.

LetÂ’s pray. Father, we thank You for this day. We ask Lord, your blessing and your help. And Dear God help us to appreciate what You have done for us in giving your Son, not an angel did You give us, not gold, not a piece of the throne that You throw away, but You gave us your only begotten son. And for that we will worship You throughout all eternity. That we have an older brother, and He is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters, because He has died for us. He's taken away our sin, and He's given us his own righteousness.

In Jesus Name.

AMEN

/35

articles and sermons :: the misunderstood cross - paul washer

Documents