March 31, 2009

Why I Do Not Believe Jesus Paid the Price for My Sins (part 1)

It is common practice in today’s Christian culture for believers to say that Jesus paid the price for our sins. I am here today to confess to the world that I do not believe this to be true. Here is why…

http://www.dictionary.com/ defines price this way. “the sum of money, or other consideration, for which a person's support, consent, etc., may be obtained, esp. in cases involving sacrifice of integrity: They claimed that every politician has a price. This definition of price implies a transaction which Christ takes part in; an exchange. But what is exchanged and with whom?

The exchange we focus on here is a result of sin and it is natural for us to assume that Christ makes an exchange with Satan but this may not be most accurate. This understanding elevates Satan to a position above sin. This would mean he created sin, rules over and is not under its effects. No longer under the effects of sin and having bara creative ability (the ability to create from nothing) he would be an equal counterpart to Christ. Seeing that Christ created Satan this is not the case.

Proper understanding would be to place Satan under sin and therefore subject to it and Christ in a position over both Satan and sin as the sole being that is not subject to its effects. In truth sin is subject to God. Whatever God chooses to define as his sin must relinquish to Him. Does this mean that Christ created sin? No. Christ defines himself. Sin is simply a byproduct of that definition. If you were to create a list defining the foods you ate yesterday one could look at it and create a second list of foods you did not eat. You did not create the second list but by process of elimination that which you created can be used to determined that which you did not. Similarly, sin is the natural byproduct of God's defining that which is Him.

Seeing only sin's power, Satan tries to use this byproduct of God’s defining himself in an attempt to become God. Satan, unlike God, is subject to sin's effects when underneath it. Since then sin has gotten the best of Satan and remains at his heels. Bing-bang-boom; we have the fall, man follows Satan, sin enters into the world and history is changed forever.

At this point all humanity is under Adam as his offspring, Adam is under Satan and Satan is under sin. Creation has come under the banner of sin taking a position of subordination, subjection and slavery to it. Being under its charge we have relinquished our authority to its leadership. If sin is our leader we follow wherever it leads and sin leads to death.

Sin does not approach as overpower alone. It also comes offering itself as a subordinate. In this approach sin promises power; power which we can use to achieve our goals. Sin presents itself as a subordinate placing its power at our disposal. It is not until after that power is tapped into that it demands compensation. The wage due sin for use of its power is death.

From above sin has usurped our authority and is leading us to death. From below sin has provided a service for which it now demands payment. Surrounded both above and below there is no escaping sin.


TO BE CONTINUED >>>

Thank you for reading part 1 of Why I Do Not Believe Jesus Paid The Price For My Sins. Check back tomorrow for part too.

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

Don't forget to give a thumbs up or down and to vote up top for you favorite posts. As always your comments are appreciated. Your response and input are what motivates me to keep posting.

1 comment:

Aubrey Ann said...

Here are some of my thoughts from a paper I wrote:
The governmental theory both refutes the satisfaction theory and the punishment theory (Grider, 1994). The main focus of the governmental theory is that atonement was brought through Christ’s sufferings on the cross. This is in fact Biblically sound. Even amongst the differences in translations, four different translations state 27-28 times that Christ suffered for humanity (Grider, 1994).
The government theory proposes Biblically that Christ’s death could not be that of punishment. The Bible continually talks about forgiveness. If Christ’s death was only Himself taking the punishment, there would be no forgiveness. Punishment and forgiveness cannot coincide (Grider, 1994). In the same manner, Christ’s death could not be a mere payment on a debt. A debt is not forgiven if it has been paid off. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says, “You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (qtd. in Grider, 1994, 331). This price was the cost of Christ’s suffering on the cross, not the payment on a debt.
As an objective viewed theory, the governmental theory proposes that “…God made the offering” (qtd. in Grider, 1994, 332). Because God offered Himself in the form of His son, Jesus Christ, He is the object of the atonement. The atonement was not merely and example, but a direct action, taken by God to bring His people back to Him (Grider, 1994).
The governmental theory can be viewed as somewhat of a melting pot of theories. It acknowledges that God had to bring judgment on sin. However, it also acknowledges that once judgment had been taken on sin, forgiveness could take place (Grider, 1994). Because God is holy, Jesus (God) was the only acceptable offering for the sins of the world. This is how the governmental theory places the focus on God’s integrity (Collins, 2005).
Also, the governmental theory incorporates part of the ransom theory. Admittedly, Christ did pay a ransom on behalf of us. In addition, the governmental theory admits the extent of God’s love as shown on the cross (as in the Abelardian moral influence theory). One of the most well known verses in the Bible comes from John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (NASB). What is important to remember when looking at the love of God from the governmental theory is that Christ’s death on the cross was not merely an example of God’s love, but an action of God’s love.
The governmental theory also holds that Christ’s work on the cross was substitutionary (Grider, 1994). Christ’s death on the cross was in substation for the punishment of hell for those who repent and believe. The biggest element of the governmental theory is that because Christ died on the cross, God could forgive His people. His holiness could once again meet with people.
----
Thanks for posting about this Ryan. Can't wait for part 2!