A
Arial
Guest
The absolute view says that God neither has willed nor could have willed the forgiveness of sins without satisfaction made to His justice.
The hypothetical view says that it was not at all necessary as God could and would pardon sin without satisfaction being made to His justice. It was only necessary because God decreed that an atonement would be made.
There is also what I would call a theoretical view that says Jesus made atonement for all sins of all the world (each individual) with His death on the cross, but this atonement is only effective for any specific person if they believe that Christ made this atonement, and choose, by what they term their own free will, to have Jesus as the Lord of their life.
The absolute view in this regard, says that the atonement was absolute in the sense that God's justice must be satisfied against sin in individuals, and that it was effective for all those for whom He paid. In other words, Jesus was sent by the Father to redeem specific individuals, those the Father was giving Him. (John 17:2,6,9; John 6:39)
God stands in relation to the sinner as the creditor; as the Lord and party offended; and as the judge and ruler. Sin is debt; enmity; crime. The one making atonement, Christ, must put on what is in keeping with this threefold relation that corresponds to these three things. He must be surety for the payment of the debt. Mediator, that is peacemaker to take away the enmity of the parties and reconcile us to God. He must be a Priest and victim to substitute Himself for the sinner and make atonement by enduring the penal code of the law against sin.
There is much more in this concerning who Jesus is and exactly what He accomplished, and it is of great benefit for the believer to pursue it, but I shall not delve into the depths here. Suffice it to say that Jesus did all these things, and it was actual. He did not do them in order to dispense grace to all, so that all might choose. There is nothing in scripture that shows this. And the atonement was not a moral atonement in which it provided the supreme and extreme example of how we are to live, that we might now be able to save ourselves through obedience., or be saved by our faithfulness, rather than our faith. Jesus in actuality satisfied God's justice against the sins of many, by in actuality paying their debt in full, and clothing them in His righteousness, and in actuality reconciled them to God. And if He did this, then it has no contingencies that are determined by man. And if He made expiation for all, as some claim, while adding the contingency of choice, then He also expiated the sin of unbelief, and there would be no need of choice.
The hypothetical view says that it was not at all necessary as God could and would pardon sin without satisfaction being made to His justice. It was only necessary because God decreed that an atonement would be made.
There is also what I would call a theoretical view that says Jesus made atonement for all sins of all the world (each individual) with His death on the cross, but this atonement is only effective for any specific person if they believe that Christ made this atonement, and choose, by what they term their own free will, to have Jesus as the Lord of their life.
The absolute view in this regard, says that the atonement was absolute in the sense that God's justice must be satisfied against sin in individuals, and that it was effective for all those for whom He paid. In other words, Jesus was sent by the Father to redeem specific individuals, those the Father was giving Him. (John 17:2,6,9; John 6:39)
God stands in relation to the sinner as the creditor; as the Lord and party offended; and as the judge and ruler. Sin is debt; enmity; crime. The one making atonement, Christ, must put on what is in keeping with this threefold relation that corresponds to these three things. He must be surety for the payment of the debt. Mediator, that is peacemaker to take away the enmity of the parties and reconcile us to God. He must be a Priest and victim to substitute Himself for the sinner and make atonement by enduring the penal code of the law against sin.
There is much more in this concerning who Jesus is and exactly what He accomplished, and it is of great benefit for the believer to pursue it, but I shall not delve into the depths here. Suffice it to say that Jesus did all these things, and it was actual. He did not do them in order to dispense grace to all, so that all might choose. There is nothing in scripture that shows this. And the atonement was not a moral atonement in which it provided the supreme and extreme example of how we are to live, that we might now be able to save ourselves through obedience., or be saved by our faithfulness, rather than our faith. Jesus in actuality satisfied God's justice against the sins of many, by in actuality paying their debt in full, and clothing them in His righteousness, and in actuality reconciled them to God. And if He did this, then it has no contingencies that are determined by man. And if He made expiation for all, as some claim, while adding the contingency of choice, then He also expiated the sin of unbelief, and there would be no need of choice.