- Stolen Child
- Journal list menu
- By Wayne A. Grudem - Wayne A. Grudem
- God’s Love and Justice in Contradiction? | Reasonable Faith
They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die unless in infancy before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins. The other argument is that living unbelieving elect are under divine wrath in life.
You say: Owen would ask if disbelief is sin? Is denying Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior sin? If so, Jesus died for that sin too. David: Sure unbelief is a sin. Belief is not a sin, and expiatory sacrifice has to do with sin and sins. An expiatory satisfaction as a penal satisfaction does not work like a pecuniary satisfaction, as it does not acquire things.
You think that if the basis of offense is removed, justification must necessarily follow. Or like, to remove the basis of offense, is like removing a cup of its water, such that it must be filled by something else. The satisfaction of Christ, by itself, does not save.
The sacrifice of expiation allows God to pardon, but itself does not secure pardon, because it deals with sin, not righteousness. You say: David we should not confuse justification with sanctification. Christ did not only substitutionary atone for past sin, but of present and future.
Firstly it is not true because the living unbelieving elect are under wrath and punishment in life before they repent. Hence God can and does punish 2 persons for the same sin s. On this basis alone, the double-payment argument must be acknowledge as an argument that does not capture the biblical truth accurately: something is wrong it.
So what is wrong with it?
As Hodge says, what is wrong with it is that it can only work on pecuniary grounds. It falls apart in terms of proper penal satisfactions. In a proper penal satisfaction, a condition may be added. May be this will be help. Dabney gives a good example of two brothers. Both poor.
One gets himself in debt with a rich farmer. He cannot pay. This brother and the farmer come to an agreement. We can add to this that suppose the farmer adds a condition, such that the indebted brother must promise never to get in such a debt every again. All parties agree. That is what C Hodge is getting at. Suppose the indebted brother reneges on his agreement, then the farmer will rightly insist that he pay the full original debt in his own person.
John Owen would probably agree with much you said, but he will ask, is it a sin to have no faith in Jesus and reject to repent.
Journal list menu
If it is a sin to deny Jesus as Lord, then Jesus died for that sin on the cross too, thus everyone, if universal atonement is true, will be saved, even those who sin by rejecting Him and keep refusing to repent. Atonement is an atonement for sin, not for righteousness. Atonement deals only with deficit and transgression not obedience and fidelity. Your argument treats the satisfaction as it currency which purchases things, or that if the deficit is removed, the positive most automatically follow.
But in terms of criminal law, this does not automatically follow.
Satisfaction only sustains the grounds whereby God may forgive and save a sinner in a way that comports with his law and justice. You are very correct David. Owen would ask if disbelief is sin? David we should not confuse justification with sanctification.
By Wayne A. Grudem - Wayne A. Grudem
As soon as the debt or fine is paid, the obligation is discharged immediately. It cannot be delayed. This is a real problem for Owen, which he did not properly answer. Its simply not credible to say that even tho the fine is paid, the judge can decide to delay release from the obligation and say continue to hold smith in Jail. You imply this when you say the captive has no say. With pecuniary satisfaction, my disposition toward the judge or creditor or to the crime or to the debt is completely irrelevant.
Vicarious satisfaction is not simply that Christ as an equivalent person stands in our place, but that he suffers an equivalent suffering for sin. Owen held to the idem idea which just about everybody else has rejected. It probably means having obtained the right or means to apply it, and then its application, by extension. The law no longer condemns the sinner who believes in Christ. I might be wrong. What if this is not true? The idea of what we are saved from would necessarily change.
According to Paul we have been saved from slavery to sin specifically from the captivity to evil forces like satan. If that is so, then the ransom was not paid to God it was paid to the devil and we have been set free from Him.